What did the Bishops really say?
For cradle Catholics who have spent their entire lives conveying to others that abortion in any
form is wrong, the response by the Bishops of Montana that they will not support CI-100, a
Constitutional Initiative to define that the word person, which includes that, “all persons are
created free and have certain inalienable rights from the moment of conception,” was met with a
great deal of surprise and shock. Catholics and Christians alike were all stunned to hear the
prelates of this Christian community dismiss the CI-100, especially, in light of the fact that it is
identical to HB-403 which the Catholic Church testified in favor of in the 2007 legislative session.
Some are saying it is not possible to be both Pro-life and Pro-Bishop? I think it is important to re-
evaluate what they have publicly written for release to the public before you make up your mind.
In the first letter release to the parishes for dissemination to the laity, the bishops stated the
following phrases in that document; “We the Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain steadfast in our
commitment to defend human life in all of its stages, from conception to natural death. We
commend the ultimate objective of these efforts. We encourage any and all efforts to eliminate or
reduce attacks on the unborn…..We the Roman Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain dedicated
to the protection of life from conception to natural death. We urge all to join us in our efforts to
protect life in all of its stages”….but then there is also the phrase, “We the Catholic Bishops of
Montana will not support CI-100.” Initially, the Bishops comments sound like a profound
endorsement, and then they abruptly changes course in the opposite direction. When the
Bishops say, “We,” they are indicating themselves, their priests, the deacons and the
administrative assistants who serve their respective parishes will not promulgate or propagate CI-
100. At no time, in any document, in any quote does either Bishop say that individual, moral
Catholics cannot support or sign the petition, as their conscience dictates.
“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t just stand back and let them die. Don’t
try to disclaim responsibility by saying that you didn’t know about it. For God, who knows all
hearts, know yours, and He knows you knew! And He will reward everyone according to his
deeds.” Proverbs 24:11-12
As Catholics read the March 21, 2008 Editorial in the Montana Catholic, the perplexing
statements create even more confusion. In the fourth paragraph, the comment, “We have
sought and carefully weighed valued opinions from pro-life groups and our brother Bishops in
Colorado, Michigan and Georgia……” The operative word is, “opinion,” as words such as,”careful
consideration,” “we do not believe,” “reasonably certain,” “might be challenged,” “might be re-
established,” “the possibility that,” and numerous other leading comments which complement the
theme of, “Opinion,” are found throughout the article Even though there are some supporting
facts, the Bishops do not at any time say that the laity should not support CI-100. They leave that
decision up to the conscience of each individual.
Unfortunately, as the pro-life community ponders which theme to support, “The Right to Life,
Bopp. Colson and Bostrom, wait theme,” or the “Thomas More Law Center, do it now strategy,” in
Montana, 4200+ innocents will perish as we evaluate the best route to follow before the next
legislature in 2011 will be held and pro-life legislation “might,” be indorsed by the Catholic Church
of Montana.
The National Right to Life strategy dictates that, “we wait,” until a fifth pro-life justice is appointed
to the Supreme Court by a pro-life president. They fail to point out that seven of the nine present
justices were appointed by pro-life presidents and only four are, apparently, pro-life.
The Thomas More Law Center indicates that, “now is the time,” to submit to the Supreme Court a
legal challenge which supports the definition of person. Supreme Court Justice Blackmon, from
the Roe vs. Wade era, indicated that when the states define “Personhood,” Roe vs. Wade would
fail. The state of Georgia has the best chance to defend that belief as the Georgia House of
Representatives, the Senate and the Governor are all supporting a “personhood,” definition.
Georgia anticipates running their initiative all the way to the Supreme Court.
As Montana Catholic and Christians wander in circles as what to do, we need to evaluate, why did
the Bishops flip-flop on their original decision to support HB-403, which is identical to CI-100? If
we look to the state of Colorado, we might find the answer? The prelate of Colorado is Arch-
Bishop Chaput, who is one of the most outspoken pro-life Catholic leaders in the United States.
His comments and concerns about buffet Catholic politicians are legendary and noteworthy. A
few legislators in the state of Colorado are presently trying to create legislation which would take
away the tax exempt status of the Colorado Catholic Church because of Arch-Bishop Chaput’s
comments. Although the legislation is, extremely exaggerated, if approved by the state
legislature, it would bring the Catholic Church and its numerous worthwhile social programs in
Colorado to their knees. Hospitals, adoption programs, Catholic schools, social programs, etc
would all be affected. The legislation is infectious and if successful, could spread to the other
three states involved in “personhood amendments.”
The decision to change from support to non-support of CI-100 was not taken lightly, and knowing
how a hierarchy such as the Catholic Church works, this decision was undoubtedly made by a
committee of Bishops, Arch-Bishops, or Cardinals, several pay grades above the Bishops of
Montana. Our Montana Bishops, unfortunately, will take the heat for this decision.
So what did our bishops really say? “We share the objective of CI-100 and we commend the
good faith of those who proposed it,” “but we will not support it.” A statement which clearly
separates the Montana Catholic Church from litigation or tax exempt status challenges. “We,” is
defined as “We, the Bishops.” No where does it say, “we the Catholic Church,” or “we the
Catholic Laity?” It creates an open ended avenue, where, “we the Catholic Laity,” can make the
moral, independent decision, whether you will sign, or not sign the petition as dictated by your
conscience. Should you care to explore that decision further, go to Life2008.org where you can
read more about CI-100, where you can download a petition and an affidavit, and evaluate, am I,
“pro-life or pro- Bishop?” …..We, the members of the Catholic/Christian community, recommend
that, “You can be both!!”…..
For your thoughtful consideration,
Jim Van Sickle COL (ret)
Stevensville, Montana