RFFM.ORG

Mary Anne Hackett, CCI, "In Her Own Words"

"IN THEIR OWN WORDS" 3rd in an RFFM.org series
by Mary Anne Hackett, President, Catholic Citizens of Illinois

To commemorate RFFM.org's 15 years of service to the conservative community, we will be conducting a series of monthly interviews throughout 2007 with some of the most influential leaders in the pro-family/conservative movement.  RFFM.org's national director, Daniel Zanoza, will conduct Q + A sessions with the aim of educating our readers as to some of the views held by those who work tirelessly to reach their stated goals.

RFFM.org will also describe the mission statements of those who work for organizations or detail the expertise of some of the most prominent individuals in their fields regarding issues that affect Americans on many levels.

The third Q + A features Mary Anne Hackett, President, Catholic Citizens of Illinois.

Mission Statement:  Catholic Citizens of Illinois (CCI) is a lay organization which exists to support Catholic values in the public life of Illinois and to educate Illinois Catholics, as a conscious group, to serve as responsible witnesses to Christ in the midst of human society.  CCI works in support of the church by seeking to answer the call of the Second Vatican Council for genuine lay involvement in the life of the Church and society.

Q. Your mission statement explains a great deal about why you formed Catholic Citizens of Illinois, but could you elaborate on why you felt there was such a need for your organization.

A. Statistics show that Catholics are indistinguishable from the rest of society in terms of their behavior and their voting patterns. Yet, our Catholic Faith has much to contribute in terms of guidance and direction in the teachings of the Church on the moral issues of the day.  It is our belief that there has been a failure of catechesis for the last 30 or 40 years and our Catholic people do not know their Faith.  We are seeking to fill that void.

Our organization was founded ten years ago by Tom Roeser, Tom Wronski, a young man who is no longer active with CCI, and myself.  We have over 1,100 members.   

Q. Keeping CCI's mission statement in mind, please explain to our readers how things would look for the Catholic Church if you met many of your goals.

A. Religion is not something we practice in the privacy of our homes or on Sunday morning at Church.  Faith in God and in His Son, Jesus, is supposed to transform our lives.  A priest friend often says we should “know our Faith, love our Faith and live our Faith.” 

The greatest benefit for the Church is educated Catholics who live their Faith.  If we are able to educate and encourage Catholics through the speakers at our luncheon forums, our web site and our newsletter, they will not only be a blessing to the Church, but to society as well.

Also, we were angry and disgusted with the tone of many articles about the Catholic Church in the secular media, many of them filled with misinformation, quoting dissenters and rarely those of us who love the Church.  We resolved to become a media resource where reporters could come to hear the truth about the Church and what she teaches.  We have been somewhat successful in that regard, but would like to become more well-known as a media contact and are working toward that goal.  Some of our board members have appeared on radio and TV shows to defend the Church’s teaching.

Q. Most people who embrace traditional Christian values have found the media to be hostile to that message.  What kind of bias, if any, has your group encountered?  If so, how does CCI overcome this bias in the attempt to get your message out?

A. The reason a secular society belittles and tries to marginalize Christians is because they believe in moral rules that are at odds with the current hedonistic values.  They want to stamp out things that make them feel guilty so they can continue to live as they wish for pleasure without rules.  Christian moral values make them feel uncomfortable or guilty.

We get our message out through ads in newspapers and on the radio.  We particularly try to reach Catholics before the elections pointing out that there are politicians who are pretending to be Catholic and asking for their vote, but they are, in fact, dissenters from the Faith, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.  We urge them to “take their Catholic Faith into the voting booth.”

One year CCI took out ads, presenting the Catholic teaching on abortion, in newspapers around the State.  We estimated that over 2,000,000 people saw the ad.  We have also placed newspaper ads presenting the teaching of the Church on homosexuality.  The ads are expensive, but we believe they must be a priority to reach our Catholic people because they are not hearing this information at Church.

Q. America's history is filled with anti-Catholic bigotry.  Do you believe this bigotry still exists in our nation?  And, if it does, why?

A. There is a bigotry against all Faiths, but the Catholic Church has been a stronghold against the evil in the world for centuries. Our doctrines, papal encyclicals, etc., oppose many of the evils in our society today, such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual “marriage,” and contraception, so we have become the enemy of secularism.  There is a focus on undermining the influence of the Catholic Church. 

Because of the recent scandal involving sexual abuse by clergy, the faithful clergy and Catholic lay people who speak out on moral issues are told they have no right to speak on moral issues.  Even one case of sexual abuse is inexcusable.  But what about similar occurrences in other religions or among teachers and school employees which far exceed the 1% of priests who committed such crimes.  Are they silenced or is it just Catholics?

Newly released historical notes from the archives in the Soviet Union relate the clear plan to diminish the influence of the Church.  Efforts have been made to discredit Pope Pius XII, claiming that he was complicit with Hitler in the extermination of the Jews, while there is clear evidence in the Vatican archives and even in the New York Times at that time, as well as from leaders of the Jewish people themselves that Pope Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews in Italy and thousands in other countries.

Recent information has been reported of spying on Pope John Paul II by the Soviet Union because they feared his ties to Poland and his encouragement of the people of Poland to overturn communism.  As a result of his inspiration to the Polish people, we have seen the fall of communism in Poland and in the Soviet Union. 

Early reports by Bella Dodd, a communist activist and spy in America, related that the communists infiltrated the Catholic seminaries in the 1930’s in order to undermine the Faith.  Dodd testified to that evidence before Congress in the 1950’s.  The efforts to bring about the fall of the Catholic Church have been ongoing since the beginning of the Church, but Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

Q. Obviously, there are dedicated individuals within the faith who fight to the very end concerning moral issues and in their attempt to head off our nation's moral decline.  I would assume you are happy there are so many Catholics who, in essence, put their time and money where their mouth is.  Could you talk about this?

A. We are overjoyed with the response we have received to our organization, our newsletter, and particularly our web site.  I’m not sure of the current figures, but in the past, 500,000 people visited our web site each week.

In the past, during times of crisis in the Church, it has been the lay people who have saved the Church.  So, in terms of history, we are not surprised by the activism of our members and their desire for renewal in our Church.  Conservative, orthodox Catholics are always seeking ways to learn more about their faith and to keep up with what is happening in the Church on a worldwide basis.  Our web site (www.catholiccitizens.org) provides that type of information and has been ranked excellent and one of the top Catholic web sites in the country. 

Q. CCI has forum luncheons every month with outstanding speakers who present current issues from a Catholic perspective.  What is the purpose of those luncheons?  Can you talk about some of the speakers you have previously hosted and in what way where they particularly impressive?   Who do you have scheduled to speak in the future and is there anyone you would personally like to have address CCI?

A. The purpose of the luncheon forums is to educate.  Sad to say, sermons on the moral issues of the day are rare in most of the parishes.  We select speakers that address Catholic subjects such as a new encyclical, the role of Catholic education, thriving new religious orders, the Catholic vote, Catholic art and literature, natural family planning, marriage, and a host of other subjects that help Catholics to know the Church’s teachings in those areas and to live according to them.  You might call it Catholic enrichment!

We have featured: George Weigel, the biographer of John Paul II; Mother Assumpta Long, founder of a new and thriving order of Dominican nuns with almost 100 new sisters in formation; and several local priests who have spoken on new encyclicals.  Other speakers included: Raymond Arroya, the biographer of Mother Angelica of EWTN fame; Michael Rose, author of “Goodbye, Good Men,” which documented homosexuality in the seminaries; Father Joseph Fessio who was a student of Pope Benedict XVI; and Joseph Pearce, the biographer of numerous literary giants who are converts to the Church.  Phyllis Schlafly spoke at one of our early annual dinners, as well as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights.

We were really inspired by last year’s dinner speaker, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.  He is a stalwart defender of the Faith and a hero to most orthodox Catholics.  His message: “Take your Faith into the Public Square.”  That has been the goal of Catholic Citizens of Illinois from the beginning.

Our upcoming speakers include Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt who will contrast Islam and Christianity; Dr. William Carroll of Oxford University who will speak on St. Thomas Aquinas and the beginnings of the Universe; and Fr. Thomas Milota, who will speak on The New Evangelization.  We are currently negotiating with Fr. Frank Pavone's office to have him speak at our annual dinner in the Fall.  Father Pavone is the founder of Priests for Life and also of a new order of Priests for Life.  He is a dynamic speaker on the defense of human life and the role of Catholics in the political life of our country. People can get information on upcoming speakers at our web site.

Q. What are some of the projects you are working on now and what are you planning to address in the future?

A. We are hoping to activate our people to take a public stand against homosexual "marriage", to defend traditional marriage and to end the curse of abortion on our country.  We especially hope to inspire our members to love their Faith and defend it.

For more information about Catholic Citizens of Illinois visit their web site at: www.catholiccitizens.org.  At the site, there is also info available for those who would like to make a tax-deductible donation or volunteer their time to CCI.  Contact CCI at the following number: (312) 409-1845 or via e-mail at: [email protected].  Write CCI at: Catholic Citizens of Illinois, 106 Calendar Court, PMB #122, La Grange, IL 60525.  To make a reservation for CCI luncheons, call Maureen at (708) 352-5834.

Hastert has not made a decision on retirement, but some Republicans believe he should--and soon

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, national director

If there is one thing I should have learned in nearly fifty-four years of life, it is that one should never assume.  After writing technical papers, articles and columns for nearly 20 years, the primary lesson I should always abide by as a writer is to always be precise.

In an RFFM.org commentary titled, "Lauzen should be only pro-family candidate in GOP Primary to seek Hastert's soon to be vacated seat" and posted on March 19th, 2007, [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/11/lauzen-should-b.html] I failed on both counts to operate with these two credos in mind.  Therefore, I need to make a correction to my commentary.

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, 65, has not announced his retirement from Congress.  Lulu Blacksmith, Hastert's press secretary, told me, "The Congressman has not made any decision on whether he will seek reelection.  He intends to make his decision later this year."  RFFM.org apologizes to Representative Hastert and our readers for the mistake. 

Also, it appears some may have come to the conclusion I was saying Hastert was considering an early retirement from his seat in the 14th U.S. Congressional District.  RFFM.org apologizes if anyone was misled by some ill-chosen words.  In the piece, I wrote Hastert's seat was "soon to be vacated."  In reality, by "soon" I meant Hastert would be leaving after his current term.  To those of us who are over 40 years of age, two years is not a long time.  But, again, I should have been precise in my language.

Concerning the status of Hastert's political future, the conventional wisdom "was" his current term would be his last.  So, like many others, my thought process flowed from this premise--as I appealed for pro-family candidates to be politically disciplined in their attempt to win in both the GOP primary and general election in the 14th Congressional District in 2008.  That is, to be precise, this scenario only applies if this is indeed Hastert's last term.

However, it is interesting how the meaning of a column can be obscured by some careless references.  But even though I now have accurate information about Hastert's indecision on retirement, some new questions come to mind.

As fate would have it, my mistake brings to mind some new questions regarding Republican politics in the 14th U.S. Congressional District.  If Hastert is planning not to seek another term, his decision needs to be made as soon as possible.  Hesitation on Hastert's part would foster queries about his intellectual honesty regarding who would replace him on the Republican primary ballot.  In order to run in the 2008 Republican primary, candidates wishing to be on the ballot will have to obtain signatures and officially file their candidacy way before the end of the 2007 calendar year.

According to what I was told today by the Illinois State Board of Elections, information regarding requirements concerning dates for filing are still up in the air.  This is due to a question over the possible change in the date for the next Illinois primary.  Currently held in March, the primary could possibly be moved up to February of 2008.  In the 2006 primary, held in March of the same year, candidates seeking U.S. Congressional seats were allowed to begin collecting signatures on September 1st of 2005.  The official deadline for filing for the March 2006 primary was December 12th of 2005.  Of course, if the 2008 primary is to be moved up one month, the entire process, including when signatures could be collected and the deadline date for filling would have to change.  According to State Board of Elections officials, all dates related to the 2008 Illinois primary are pending.

Certainly this puts more pressure upon Mr. Hastert to make a decision regarding his political future.  But there are cynics who say hesitation on Hastert's part is by design.  They believe the Illinois Republican Party, which is hardly a unified group these days, desires to micromanage just who will be on the GOP primary ballot.  These same cynics believe the Republican establishment has already chosen a replacement for Hastert--if he indeed decides to retire after his current term expires.  They believe the longer Hastert delays to announce a decision on his political future, the harder it will be for political challengers to mount a viable campaign against the establishment's choice.

There are even darker scenarios which can occur, according to some political insiders.  But, for the moment, let's not go there and let's give the former Speaker of the House the benefit of a doubt.  No matter what the case, Hastert needs to make a decision soon.  Otherwise those who already look at politics with a jaundice eye will become even more skeptical of Hastert's motives.

Lauzen should be only pro-family candidate in GOP Primary to seek Hastert's soon to be vacated seat

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, national director

In the late 1990's, social conservatives were on a political roll in the Illinois Republican Party.  This fact certainly did not escape the movers and shakers in the GOP, many of whom were hostile to this political philosophy.  Pro-family conservatives were driven by a higher moral calling and most could not be bought, threatened or enticed into sacrificing their values for political expedience and this irked the political bosses.  Therefore, a strategy was developed to defeat social conservatives and for nearly ten years this plan has worked to perfection.

In today's world of Illinois politics, it's not easy to tell friend from foe.  During the better part of the last decade, there have been obvious attempts by slick-talking political consultants who were delegated an important job--which was to derail the Republican pro-family political movement in Illinois by the use of any means possible.  The idea was simple; make sure supporters of pro-family candidates split their vote in primaries.

But there is another element to this strategy.  Even if one of the two or more social conservatives won in a Republican primary, it was impossible to develop Party unity for the general election.  Heated political primaries often left alienated factions among conservative voters.  Some, who were dedicated to their particular candidate, could not put a wholehearted effort behind the victorious conservative opponent.  A cult of personality sometimes develops in any political race and it is hard to put months of hard work and dedication aside, in order to support an individual who was once the political enemy.

The strategy can work another way.  In the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary, Judy Baar Topinka, a liberal, walked away with the GOP nomination.  Most political observers knew Baar Topinka had no chance of winning without the support of the Party's base.  Although Baar Topinka was soundly defeated in the general election by a weak incumbent Governor, the overall strategy still worked and a social conservative was kept from winning the governor's race.  It is a win-win situation for establishment Republicans who see social conservatives as the true threat to their power.

There is a way to defeat this anti-conservative model and that's by demonstrating political discipline. Individuals must resist those who whisper in their ear things like, "with enough money, and my help, you can do it."  But this is a hard thing to do.  The ego is a formidable element within one's character and it is hard to suppress.  However, if an individual truly believes in the pro-family philosophy--they should put the welfare of their state and nation ahead of their own personal interest.

There are candidates whose credentials as pro-family advocates are impeccable.  Such is the case with state Sen. Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora).  The fifteen year veteran of the Illinois General Assembly is expected to announce his candidacy in the 14th U.S. Congressional District.

Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, who currently holds the seat, has announced this will be his last term in office.  Lauzen, whose state Senate district covers nearly one-third of Hastert's district, would be a natural choice to fill the position.

Lauzen, who has an MBA from Harvard, is known for his fiscal conservatism.  In fact, Lauzen was the only member of the Illinois legislature to stand up on the floor of the General Assembly in 1999 and criticize then Gov. George Ryan's tax boondoggle known as Illinois FIRST.  Lauzen has also been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights and he has gone on record in defense of traditional marriage.  But, most important, Lauzen has an impeccable record concerning the issue of life.  He sponsored a bill which would have made partial-birth abortion illegal.  Although the legislation was eventually struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, Lauzen's credentials in the fight to protect unborn life are outstanding.

However, with all these accomplishments behind him, there are individuals considering a challenge to Lauzen from the Right regarding Hastert's seat and the more liberal candidate will probably be endorsed by the Republican establishment.  If this scenario takes place, it will be another disaster for pro-family conservatives.  The model to defeat social conservatives is tried and true.  Yet some are willing to sacrifice principles for personal fame and notoriety.

The Left's motives are understandable.  The Republican establishment in Illinois sees social conservatives as an infestation within the Party which must be excised at all costs.  Therefore, appealing to this group on moral grounds will bear no fruit because they are driven by the allure of power and influence.

On the other hand, social conservatives need to assess the situation and allow Lauzen--who has carried the water for the pro-family movement on many occasions in Illinois--a clear shot at this office.  A run by another social conservative, or one claiming to be such, would obviously force Lauzen to spend money that would be better utilized in a fight against a liberal Democratic foe in the general election.

If social conservatives are willing to cast aside those who have fought for their values in Illinois government, then perhaps we will get what we deserve in the 14th Congressional District of Illinois.

Oberweis Resignation as RA-IL Chief Spokesman a Strange Saga of Subterfuge and Politics 3.12.07

RFFM.org NEWS EXCLUSIVE

MARCH 12, 2007

SPRINGFIELD -- On January 16th, 2007 RFFM.org posted an exclusive titled, "Republican Assembly of Illinois (RA-IL) Fails to Appoint Oberweis State Conservative Spokesman / Meeting Draws Ire of Some Pro-Family Leaders." [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/01/ra-of-il-fails.html]

RFFM.org reported on what was referred to by some as a "secret meeting" held by the organization on January 6, 2007.  An anonymous source who attended said the gathering included some past and present members of the Republican Assembly of Lake County and conservative leaders who were not members of the group.

According to the source, the Republican Assembly of Illinois intended to appoint perennial Republican candidate Jim Oberweis to a leading position in the organization.  RFFM.org learned the group's leaders had indeed intended to not only insert the CEO of Oberweis Dairy into a high position, but they also planned for Oberweis to represent all conservatives in the state of Illinois.

RFFM.org came under considerable criticism from Republican Assembly (RA) officials who claimed the report was erroneous and misleading.  RFFM.org attempted to contact RA officials through one of its members, seeking clarification about where and how the January 16th article was allegedly misleading or inaccurate, but no representative of the RA contacted RFFM.org related to this matter.

RFFM.org stands by its January 16th report in full measure.  On February 10th, the RA validated RFFM.org's story when the group appointed Oberweis as its chief spokesman.  [see "Republican Assembly of IL' So-called Conservative Caucus Chooses Oberweis as Chief Spokesperson for Group and State?" http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/01/ra-of-il-so-cal.html]  RA apparently expanded the role of Oberweis by indicating the businessman would also be a spokesman for all conservatives in Illinois.  No vote was taken regarding the appointment of Oberweis and, according to reports there was a great deal of dissension over the group's actions during the meeting.

"It wasn't a vote.  It was a strange process which was used to select Oberweis as the group's spokesman," said the source.  "Most certainly there was dissension in the room.  I think there has been some confusion over this.  All because an individual attended the meeting, it didn't mean that person supported what was going on."

On February 15th, the RA issued a press release announcing Oberweis' appointment.  The p.r. also indicated Oberweis was a unanimous choice.  The press release drew a firestorm of criticism from the conservative community and, to make matters more strange, some of those who attended the February 10th Republican Assembly meeting expressed concerns over the content of the document.

The p.r. was issued by Col. Raymond True on behalf of the organization, but RFFM.org has learned some of those who attended the February 10th meeting were strongly against releasing the document as it was worded.  According to reports, Oberweis himself felt the press release announcing his appointment as RA Spokesman was inappropriate.

Shortly after the Feb. 10th meeting, Bruno Behrend, who had been selected as deputy spokesman for the group, resigned.  On February 15th Oberweis informed RFFM.org he had also resigned from the organization's spokesman position earlier that day.  [see "Oberweis Resigns Newly Appointed Position as RA-IL Spokesperson" http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/01/rffmorg-exclusi.html]  Oberweis would not provide RFFM.org a reason for his resignation.

Recently, RFFM.org learned the reason for the resignations of Behrend and Oberweis was due to the inaccuracies in the press release written by Col. True, the Chairman of the Republican Assembly of Lake County.  True would not relent regarding the concerns voiced by members of the organization.  Hence, this led to the resignations.

RFFM.org has learned some conservative leaders who attended the Feb. 10th meeting had no idea of the group's agenda prior to the gathering.  One member who could not publicly issue such a political endorsement was furious when he said he was caught off guard by the criticism he received after the press release went out on GOP USA Illinois mentioning his organization.  He said he was not made aware of the group's primary agenda for that day.

Some speculate Republican Assembly leaders attempted to appoint Oberweis, in order to help launch another political campaign planned by the dairy magnate.

Haunted by Decision to Abort: A personal reflection by Daniel T. Zanoza

Author's note: A version of the following column first appeared in the Christian Coalition magazine.  It also was posted on the Illinois Leader and, most recently, appeared on the Illinois Family Institute's web site.

Nearly thirty years ago, my wife and I aborted a child. That decision will haunt us for the rest of our lives. Since that time, I've developed deep feelings on the subject of abortion.

There are two primary reasons why I'm pro-life. Besides taking a human life, aborting a child robs society.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, some say over 50 million unborn babies have lost their lives. The city of Chicago and its surrounding area are home to approximately 5.1 million people. The number of babies aborted during the past thirty-four years would re-populate Chicagoland tenfold.

How many doctors, teachers, poets and engineers will the world miss because of abortion? Maybe one of these aborted children could have discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS. In fact, my very own son or daughter might have developed a cure for the blindness that afflicts me today.

How many handicapped children has our culture missed, teaching us compassion and patience? Are we a different society because of the one out of three children, perfect or not, who weren't given the chance to survive? Can it be said the world is a better place because of the Roe v. Wade decision?

I recently asked a friend who supports abortion rights, "If by some miracle, you knew a pregnant woman's child would one day find a cure for Alzheimer's, would you still believe that woman had the right to terminate that pregnancy, depriving mankind of this medical breakthrough?"

It's a rhetorical question that should be pondered before every abortion.

The pro-life contention is simple and straightforward. No one has the right to remove such potential from our society. What the human community has lost due to abortion is incalculable.

This alone should be enough to rethink Roe v. Wade. But there is yet another reason to oppose abortion.

Under Hitler's rule, enforcing death of the innocent was a national right. That madman claimed his nation would be better served through the removal of undesirables--first through harassment and deportation and, ultimately, via the "final solution"--which meant death for millions of human beings.

The question has been asked countless times of the German people who lived in that era: "What did you do while the Holocaust was happening? Did you try to stop it and, if not, why not?"

There will be a day when that question is asked of Americans about abortion. We will have to answer to future generations and, more importantly, to God for what we did or did not do to stop this sin against humanity.

While some say the Holocaust bears little resemblance to abortion in America, many believe that tragic episode in world history is comparable to the carnage which resulted from the passage of Roe v. Wade.

Women who terminate their babies' unborn lives are not monsters. If that were so, I'd be saying the same of my own wife. The point is, like water, humankind will seek its own moral level by standards set within the culture. Regarding the abortion my wife had nearly 30 years ago -- simply, if abortion were not legal, we would have a son or a daughter who could now be raising a family of his or her own. Unfortunately, at the time, a combination of youth and the moral approval implied by abortion's legality resulted in a decision my wife and I have regretted and will regret for the rest of our lives. Slavery was legal, but immoral. The same can be said of abortion.

For 184 years, abortion was considered a sin against God and man in America. Yet, one judicial decision in 1973 threw an entire value system into flux, creating moral confusion and societal tumult.

The lines dividing our nation over this issue seem to grow deeper every day and so do the emotions. There needs to be more dialogue and less posturing. There cannot be a compromise on the subject of abortion because the finality of the practice indeed leaves no room for compromise. When two women claimed to be mothers of the same child, King Solomon suggested the child be cut in half, knowing the true mother would give up her rights to the infant in order for her child to live. In the same sense, women cannot be given a partial right to abortion because the decision is final and irrevocable.

It's not about imposing one belief system over another. It's about personal and societal conscience. Though some disagree with the pro-life position, hopefully, there will come a day when our view can at least be considered noble because it truly stands up to the light of truth.

Copyright 2007 Daniel T. Zanoza