“We invite judges—the overwhelming majority of whom are non-Catholics—and attorneys and other guests of various faiths.”

What I should have said was that the luncheon is open to all faiths (but is invitation-only), because that’s what the sentence says – not that membership is open to other faiths.

As for the rest of it, I can understand the society’s position, although I am concerned with putting social issues on the same plane as life issues.

As the individual who made the award presentation to Governor Barnes on behalf of the STM Board, I need to correct some inaccuracies. First,the STM Society is open only to Attorneys who are practicing Catholics, not to all attorneys.

Second the STM Award is not a lifetime acheivement award, an endorsement of an individual’s political views, nor as a canonization of the individual. The Award is intended to illuminate and call attention to certain specific acts of courage, leadership, and integrity in the face of difficult circumstances which would make a less morally-acceptable course more attractive. It is the ACTS that we celebrate, not the Actors.

There are two ACTS by Governor Barnes’ which we believe deserve illumination and praise and that are worthy of emulation. The first was his decision to remove the racist symbol which had been inserted in Georgia’s flag in 1956 to announce the State’s defiance of federal de-segreagation efforts. This was an act of courage that he knew might cost him his re-election (and it did). It was an offical ACT telling all Georgians that we no longer will tolerate any form of racism, a sin which denies the equal human dignity of all persons.

The Second ACT was Governor Barnes’ decision after leaving office to eschew the high-priced law firms to represent poor people for free at Atlanta Legal Aid, and thereafter opened a consumer law-firm where 10% of all lawyers’ time is dedicated to the poor. Governor Barnes didn’t just wring his hand and talk about Christ’s preference for the poor. He ACTED upon it.

The STM Board most definietely did not make any award decision to gain publicity. Nor did Michael Sullivan insult Archbishop Gregory, whom we all honor, respect and for whom we have great affection by stating or even implying that Archbishop Gregory acted out of anything other than his own good conscience in deciding not to attend the Awards Luncheon. These are false judgments of our motives and our meanings. They are judgements that are offensive, and unworthy of the writer (but then there are several remarks printed here where the writers are quick to judge us –and ignore Christ’s warning that they will be judged according to the same judgement that they pronounce upon us). What Michael Sullivan was saying was that a small loud minority of persons who apparently believe that opposition to abortion is the ONLY requirement for an “authentic” Catholic, have acted in a high-handed and deceitful, manner which revealed their lack of charity toward Governor Barnes, their fellow Catholics and our Society whose efforts through these awards are to increase Christ’s light in the world by shining certain public attention upon the good, corageous, morally laudable actions of the award recipients –holding those particular actions up as examples for the rest of us to follow. I would ask the critics here: Have YOU done as much as Mr. Barnes to combat racism in your communities? Have YOU done as much as he has done to provide justice to the poor? Or is your opposition to abortion (as correct as it is) the sole example of the authenticity of your faith?

When we made the award decision we were not cognizant of Governor Barnes’ change in his position on “pro life” vs. “pro choice.” Contrary to the writer who apparently claims omniscience his stance on abourtion wasn’t particularly well known. He never introduced or signed legislation assisting abortion efforts.

The writer is correct that all human beings are required to follow the natural law, as their conscience understands it. That Governor Barnes, who comes from a Methodist tradition, understands the moral law differently is not surprising. The Methodist Church has not condemned abortion as cateorically as we Catholics have, and its teachings allow exceptions to the categorical condemnation of abortion. Roy Barnes’ apparent beliefs are thus consistent with his understanding of the natural or moral law as explained by his Church. We disagree with his understnading. Our disagreement is premised upon our acceptance of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, as strongly as we disagree with Governor Barnes’ views on the subject we are not willing to condemn his soul or his person. this is because, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, all indiviuals are commanded by God to act in a manner that is consistent with their consciences, informed by their faith.

Our STM Board members are resolutely Catholic. Our consciences are informed the the teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. Because of this we are committed to the protection of life at all stages, from conception to death. We live that conviction in the example of our lives.

Unlike some of the writers who have presumed to judge us (along with Mr. Barnes), we do not arrogate to ourselves the function of judging the consciences of other persons of other faiths.

Today at the Red Mass we prayed that the Holy Spirit would bestow His grace upon the judciary, the lawyers, and the award reciients. We asked that He gift them with prudence, wisdom, courage and integrity. We also pray to the Holy Spirit that he will include our critics and us within His grace.

Michael Caldwell

Thanks for clarifying .

And will continue to be a “dilemma” until they crave sanctity more than attention.

My purpose was to point out that STM Society, which is Catholic in leadership, is open to all denominations (or lacks thereof) and I thought it was important to point out that Governor Barnes does not claim Catholicism as his faith, so the “attitude” for lack of a better term is different that someone like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi who loudly proclaim that they are Catholic and also pro-abortion. I see a much bigger problem with these two, who essentially are telling the world that you can be a “good Catholic” and yet also disagree with the Church on core moral teachings. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say, “Barnes isn’t Catholic, so he doesn’t see himself as bound by the Church’s teachings.” But even that has its limits, because clearly Kerry and Pelosi are Catholic (in their minds, anyway) and also don’t see themselves as bound by the Church’s teachings.

The whole thing I was trying to get across was simply to clarify that Barnes is neither Catholic nor does he claim to be.

I am sure you are not meaning to say anything opposed to the Church’s teaching, so don’t think I’m trying to attack you personally. But I do think your language is incorrect.

The Church can’t “deny” him Communion only because he’s not able to receive in the first place, of course…

But I do think the Church can censure him and make public statements about him.

He can’t be excommunicated (a Canonical penalty) because he’s not in communion to begin with. But why can’t the Church make statements about him?

It’s only issues of prudence and civil law that stop the Church.

Is it written somewhere that the Church can’t make public statements about the reprehensible behavior of non-Catholics? What about Nero? Hitler?