Kathy Saile appointed as USCCB Director of Domestic Policy

[rdprolife]

It seems many assumed Kathy Saile is pro-choice because she spoke at a dinner discussion group sponsored by a pro-choice group. As a pro-lifer who has accepted invitations to speak and debate before pro-choice groups, I knew that was a shaky assumption. So I contacted Kathy Saile and she told me about this 2006 event, when she was one of two speakers or discussion leaders in a small dinner group in someone’s apartment, as part of a series sponsored by the pro-choice group WIN. At the time Kathy did not know how central the pro-choice agenda was to WIN’s mission (she thought Emily’s List was the main liberal women’s group with that mission), but she did warn the moderator that she is pro-life, and the moderator said that was fine because a diversity of views will make the discussion more interesting. Kathy attended, told the guests that being progressive and being pro-life are perfectly consistent with each other, and criticized the Democratic party’s fixation on the pro-abortion view. Needless to say, she did not get invited to any more dinners. And that is the extent of Kathy Saile’s “pro-choice” involvement. She is willing to defend her Catholic pro-life views before a hostile audience, which some in this group seem to think is a sin. But in that case Jesus was a massive sinner.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=Elzee
She should not even be putting herself in the situation where she can be ‘guilty by association’. And it’s more than that. By freely associating herself with this group she is guilty - guilty of supporting a group that clearly undermines Catholic teaching on abortion and that makes her a supporter of abortion regardless if she calls herself pro-life or pro-choice. Words mean nothing at that point.

I completely disagree.

Guilt by association, hasty generalization, and circumstantial ad hominems are all types of logical fallacies, which are a form of dishonest reasoning.

In additon, the Gospels and the natural law condemn this type of false reasoning:

• Christ ate with, hung out with and counted among his friends prostitutes, sinners and tax collectors and the Pharisees made these same false arguments against Him.
• The law of the land does not accept this type of “circumstantial” evidence as admissible in criminal court.

It’s not admissible for Our Lord, our courts, and not for me.

I’ll continue to give her and the Bishops’ decision the benefit of the doubt until some kind of valid evidence is provided. To do otherwise I would be guilty of rash judgment, an offense against the truth:

OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH

477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm

 

[cthemfly25]

Something just doesn’t add up RD though many surely appreciate your information and insight. I for one expected she would articulate a pro-life position. You and/or she claim she was with a “hostile” audience of “women of faith” but did not know what WIN was about (even though the invitation was pretty clear what the evening was to be about and what WIN was about). Wow but OK…except there are very few women in either house of congress who are pro-life and the series you glibly reference was a series to win elections for abortionists, more specifically for democratic women. I can think of no woman democrat in the Senate who is pro-life on the array of pro-life issues. I can think of a few Democratic congressmen (no woman comes to mind though there may hopefully be a few) Heath Shuler, Chris Carney, Jason Altmire, Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly who would walk the walk on pro-life issues.

don’t have the inside scoop as you seem to have on what providentially God would have us do except that the USCCB’s representative should not be involved in election politics advancing a domestic policy platform on behalf of one party over another, for in playing the role of political enzyme the USCCB will have to engage in the sometimes harmful art of compromise. Again RD, this was a group organized to win elections for abortionist which is clear in all their literature, invitations, web site, etc. Beyond her activism for “progressive” causes (progresssing where we don’t know) and her credentials as a lobbyist and as a “woman of faith”, and for advancing the democratic party’s agenda, I’m simply in awe about the USCCB’s decisions on this and other matters. In order for Saile and the USCCB to advance their “progressive” agenda, they must compromise on something for as is clear there are very few “progressives” who are pro life. What are they willing to compromise RB to get their democratic flaks elected? It really comes down to that and therein lies the meaning of this appointment of domestic policy advisor and “progressive” party activist.

 

[sprout]

USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat Kimberly Baker sent me an email today giving notice that Kathy Saile is not, in fact, pro-choice but pro-life. Kathy gave an interview to CNS indicating her position: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705315.htm
Maybe the USCCB isn’t so bad after all?

Now that we know that Kathy Saile is, indeed, ProLife, then it would appear the OP should make retribution for the calumny of stating in the title of this thread “Pro Choicer Kathy Saile appointed…”

He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

 

[rdprolife]

To comment on some recent posts regarding the group WIN (Women’s Information Network): WIN is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, so it is illegal for it to be involved in electing candidates as such (though no doubt its members can be invited to volunteer on such campaigns in their spare time). Its stated goal is to “empower” pro-choice Democratic women for “success” (in business, public policy, running a nonprofit, etc.). The dinners it sponsors every year range from the frankly political to the “dress for success” and “how to manage your personal money” variety. And the particular dinner Kathy Saile spoke at was not about electing candidates, but about affirming that women can be both religious and “progressive.” Kathy Saile’s answer to the invitation was, by all means be religious and progressive, but the “pro-choice” thing shouldn’t be part of the package. I’m getting the impression that some people want the bishops to be more aggressive in spreading the message, but at the same time don’t want them (or their staff) speaking to anyone who is not already in the choir. This is quite a challenge.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

This is from Closed Cafeteria and I can only add that this lady is the usual anti-war ‘peace and justice’ sort that most of us know.
In a letter to one person on the quote against Latin she just says she does not understand languages. She had three years of Latin in high school. I understand the Latin Mass and I only had two.​

Kathy Saile in her own words

Thanks to Peggy / midwestmom for doing all this research.
First, from Kathy Saile’s time with Catholic Charities Arizona. Saile is the new domestic policy director for the USCCB. Bolding mine.

I wonder, how could we use that wondrous Catholic sense of touching and being touched by the sacred not only as markers of our personal spiritual grace but also profoundly to celebrate our efforts to build the Kingdom here on earth?

Why can’t we similarly partake of sacramental justice?

It’s no secret that one of the biggest challenges in peace and justice ministries either on a diocesan or parish level is to inspire greater participation, not just from the people in the pews but from pastors, too. What if everyone waiting in line to receive - or give - the Eucharist during Sunday liturgy had a far more inclusive idea of communion in the Body of Christ? What if Catholics queued up to lobby at the legislature, do laundry at a homeless shelter, or march together for peace the next time our government is considering waging an unjust war?​

My first thoughts were of celebratory moments - a victory at the legislature, a liturgy to celebrate the life of Martin Luther King, breaking bread with a new friend during a worthy campaign.

But sacraments are more profound than feel-good social encounters. Sacraments touch our hearts and souls by bringing us closer to God, and thus accelerate our own conversion processes.
And then I came to rest on my own quintessential moments of sacramental justice. I - like our Church - have long been opposed to capital punishment. I’ve worked in coalition at the legislature on this issue. I’ve heard speeches, read articles, and spoken out against the death penalty. But, along with those who believe as I do, in recent years I’ve also come together outside an Arizona prison for prayer vigils when this state has executed a prisoner. I’ve stood in the dark, with a lighted candle in my hand, and listened as Msgr. Ed Ryle read our Church’s funeral rite. I’ve raised my voice to pray for the prisoner who was about to die, and for the families of the victims. And I have felt the sacredness of life at those moments, those sacred moments, when the political was transcended into the spiritual.

We need more such sacred moments of the sacramental justice that I believe was instituted by Christ and lives to this day as efficacious signs of grace in the teachings and actions of our Church

 

[cthemfly25]

And i get the distinct impression RD that your concern for Sailes is nothing more than sharing of the same political agenda masked as gospel.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

Now that we know that Kathy Saile is, indeed, ProLife, then it would appear the OP should make retribution for the calumny of stating in the title of this thread “Pro Choicer Kathy Saile appointed…”

I’m not afraid to admit I may have erred, and if the mods could remove the “pro choicer” moniker from the title, it would be appreciated.

However, I’m going to exercise prudence and not buy her “I’m pro-life” bit hook, line, and sinker. Actions speak far louder than words.

 

[Denise_Hunnell]

I would have no problem with Kathy Saile attending a WIN function if it were clear that she was there to provide the counterpoint to the WIN pro-abortion position. Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and many others have addressed governmental bodies that support abortion. Contrary to RD’s assertion, I am not advocating we only preach to the choir. However, nothing in WIN’s publications and literature suggest Ms. Saile was there as the pro-life counterpoint. Rather, everything WIN published portrays Ms. Saile as being cooperative with the group’s stated aims of preserving legalized abortion. Abortion is the cornerstone of this group’s mission statement. Ms. Saile cannot expect us to believe that she was unaware of this when even a cursory view of their web site makes it painfully clear. Perhaps WIN has truly mischaracterized Ms.Saile’s involvement. It is unfortunate that Ms. Saile chose to reveal her role as the lonely pro-life voice only after there was a loud outcry over her appointment.

 

[TAquinas]

Pray for our Bishops.

And do so more often!

 

[Red_Meg]

FYI-- In this morning’s inbox, from sdwpmail@usccb.org, with no real name attached:

Thank you for expressing your concerns about reports that the Bishop’s Conference allegedly hired a “pro-choice advocate” as the Director of Domestic Social Development. Please be assured that new Director, Kathy Saile, is a faithful Catholic who is pro-life and fully committed to the Catholic Church and its moral and social teaching, beginning with the right to life. These matters were fully explored and confirmed in the hiring process and in reference checks.

These charges apparently originated in blogs suggesting that Kathy Saile is pro-choice because she spoke at a dinner sponsored by a pro-choice women’s group. Here are some of the relevant facts:

nKathy was asked by a friend to participate in an informal, small dinner discussion on faith and politics.

nThe dinner was one several of dozen similar dinners that evening on a wide range of topics and less than ten people attended this particular dinner.

n Kathy used the occasion to make the case that the Democratic Party’s embrace of abortion and its pro-choice litmus is wrong both morally and politically. She further insisted that many people who share progressive convictions are fully committed to the defense of unborn children. While these views were not warmly received by all the participants, most of the discussion focused on how her faith shapes Kathy’s work for the poor and vulnerable.

n Far from endorsing the group’s pro-choice agenda, Kathy challenged it and made the case that progressives can and should be pro-life and that the Democratic Party should welcome pro-life candidates and positions.

The new Director of Domestic Social Development is not an advocate of abortion, but rather used this particular occasion to make the pro-life case as part of a broader discussion. Please be assured that commitment to the Catholic Church and its teaching are a central consideration in recruiting, interviewing and selecting candidates for key USCCB positions. I hope these facts address your concerns and reassure you about the positions and actions of Kathy Saile and the USCCB. As time goes on Kathy will fully demonstrate she is a faithful and effective advocate of policies which protect the life and dignity of every person.

For your information, attached is a brief CNS article on Kathy Saile’s appointment. The CNS article may be found on the CNS website at: www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705315.htm.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I got another reply back from the USCCB and here was my return response:

Thank you for your reply. I still have very great concerns on this appointment. I have read what the news arm of the USCCB issued.

Lets take a look at that WIN supper. On one listed talk was: 6. The Elephant in the Bedroom: Can the Democrats Keep Riding the Fence on Abortion?
The Democratic Party message on abortion and its impact in the national debate and upcoming elections.
Planner: Colleen Crinion
Host: Jatrice Martel Gaiter, President & **CEO, Planned Parenthood Metropolitan Washington **

And then there was the “little gathering of 7 in someone’s living room” as is claimed and it is listed as:
14. Did the Left Cede Heaven? The Intersection of Faith and Politics
Throughout American history religion has shaped US politics. Recent history has focused on the efforts and effects of Conservative Christians in the Republican Party, but the Left continues to be a party of people of faith. This dinner will highlight the way liberal people of faith organize to further progressive causes.
Planners: Maggie Rosenbloom & Ellen Banakis
Host: Shannon Hughs, Account Executive, Stones’ Phones Consulting
Speaker: Sammie Moshenberg, Director of Washington Operations, National Council of Jewish Women; Kathy Saile, Associate Director of Public Policy, Lutheran Services

In that instance Ms. Saile went as a representative of the LUTHERAN church! So the same lobbying techniques apply? Are the beliefs the same? Are Lutherans claiming to be rpro-life and anti-abortion? Is she Lutheran? And I guess with the host and planners and speakers numbering 6, only one other person came?

And then there was the statement about the regressiveness of Latin and a friend of mine e-mailed her and she just said she had no gift of languages and that she never understood it in spite of THREE years of Latin class. Didn’t she pass? I had only two years and I understand the Latin Mass (although I have only attended two in my adult life).

And then there was the public statement issued on ‘sacramental justice’ and maybe we should have liturgy for Martin Luther King and the best Mass she ever attended was at a nuclear missle site.

You see where I am going with all this? She might claim to be pro-life but what is her definition? I read of her candle light protest over capitol punishment of a condemned criminal but has she ever prayed at an abortion clinic over those condemned to be killed who have not even had a chance to live?

It does look like a fitting appointment for how I look at the USCCB, quite frankly. Plenty of spin. Peace and justice rhetoric; not easy to pin things down.

Things will change one day and appointments will be unambiguous.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

This is the reply I received from the USCCB in its entirely. It’s pretty detailed and appears quite genuine (although it was unsigned, which I’m not fond of). Perhaps I, like some bloggers, jumped the gun and rushed to judgement too quickly.

Thank you for expressing your concerns about reports that the Bishop’s Conference allegedly hired a pro-choice advocate as the Director of Domestic Social Development. Please be assured that new Director, Kathy Saile, is a faithful Catholic who is pro-life and fully committed to the Catholic Church and its moral and social teaching, beginning with the right to life. These matters were fully explored and confirmed in the hiring process and in reference checks.

These charges apparently originated in blogs suggesting that Kathy Saile is pro-choice because she spoke at a dinner sponsored by a pro-choice women’s group. Here are some of the relevant facts:

• Kathy was asked by a friend to participate in an informal, small dinner discussion on faith and politics.

• The dinner was one several of dozen similar dinners that evening on a wide range of topics and less than ten people attended this particular dinner.

• Kathy used the occasion to make the case that the Democratic Party’s embrace of abortion and its pro-choice litmus is wrong both morally and politically. She further insisted that many people who share progressive convictions are fully committed to the defense of unborn children. While these views were not warmly received by all the participants, most of the discussion focused on how her faith shapes Kathy’s work for the poor and vulnerable.

Far from endorsing the group’s pro-choice agenda, Kathy challenged it and made the case that progressives can and should be pro-life and that the Democratic Party should welcome pro-life candidates and positions.

The new Director of Domestic Social Development is not an advocate of abortion, but rather used this particular occasion to make the pro-life case as part of a broader discussion. Please be assured that commitment to the Catholic Church and its teaching are a central consideration in recruiting, interviewing and selecting candidates for key USCCB positions. I hope these facts address your concerns and reassure you about the positions and actions of Kathy Saile and the USCCB. As time goes on Kathy will fully demonstrate she is a faithful and effective advocate of policies which protect the life and dignity of every person.

For your information, attached is a brief CNS article on Kathy Saileâ’s appointment. The CNS article may be found on the CNS website at: www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705315.htm.

This may just be damage control, as things still seem somewhat obfuscated, but I’m going to take them at their word for the moment and pray for them. We all need it and are called to Love.

 

[rdprolife]

Some posts here have raised questions about Kathy Saile’s employment for Lutheran Services in America at the time of her 2006 talk – is she Lutheran? was she representing the Lutheran church? Is this group pro-life? Once again, through the unusual avenue of asking Kathy and checking the facts, I arrived at answers.

She was speaking as an individual, and organizational affiliations were listed as identification. She herself is Catholic, previously worked for Catholic organizations and is most happy to work again for her own Church where she feels truly at home. Lutheran Services in America promotes social services for the poor and needy, representing two Lutheran branches, the Missouri Synod (which is pro-life) and ELCA (which is not), so as a matter of policy it does not get involved in any dispute involving abortion – one reason, no doubt, why Kathy is more at home in a Catholic setting where the full range of the Catholic Church’s teachings is promoted.

If it is unacceptable for Catholics to be employed by Protestant organizations, a large segment of the Family Research Council and a number of other organizations in Washington DC would have to close down. Presumably it would be even more unacceptable for any Catholic to work for a secular organization. We know who you are, Catholic congressional staffers…

 

[nobeerinheaven]

The Missouri Synod still holds that the Pope is the AntiChrist - right? I wonder if she had to sign on to any form of creed or confession for that position.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

Once again, through the unusual avenue of asking Kathy and checking the facts, I arrived at answers.

I’m not aware she has well-published contact information. Are you acquainted with her?

 

[cthemfly25]

RD you are quite the apologists for this fiasco. Setting up straw man arguments and knocking them down, then maintaining the higher calling to the “corporate sin of kindness” as CS Lewis calls it. The Church is one body not a playground for the political aparatchiks. I will await for the USCCB’s explanation as to where the “progressive” cause is to eventually take us, or where that utopian kingdom exists here on earth, (afterall RD one can never “progress” enough when it comes to invoking more and more govenrment control) and how and why “progressives” are more aligned with the Faith than the poor dolts like me who might simply disagree on policy as opposed to moral imperatives. If you and Kathy (I assume you are on a first name basis) and the USCCB are so anxious for your “progressive” causes and need to gain power to advance them, then you must compromise on the issues of protecting the innocent (the unborn and the vulnerably ill) for there are only a few “progressives” who would agree with the moral imperative but all would agree with you and Kathy on the policy issues. Give my best to them.

 

[KatieD]

Would it have been that difficult for the USCCB to find a definitely pro-life Catholic for this position?

 

[rdprolife]

Now this conversation has moved on to whether “progressive” causes in general are against (or at least have no relation to) Church teaching. Setting aside, for the moment, the issues of pro-life, sexuality and marriage, where Kathy Saile and the USCCB affirm Church teaching and reject the secular “progressive” consensus, it would seem to me there is some overlap. All the issues Kathy Saile actually worked on in terms of health coverage for the poor, support for services for abused and neglected children, etc. can certainly be found as affirmative ways to express the “preferential option for the poor” in authoritative Church documents. On immigration, capital punishment, the environment (see Pope Benedict’s recent “green” statements), and strict moral limits on the initiation of war, what some seculars would call the “progressive” stance seems closer to the Catholic Church’s stance. Our beloved Pope John Paul II took no small pleasure in calling himself “the feminist Pope.” And the widely acknowledged leaders of the pro-life cause in Congress – Chris Smith in the House and Sam Brownback in the Senate – are Catholics who also hold what would generally be called “progressive” stands on some of these other issues. Of course, many seculars who support these causes may well support them for the wrong reasons or take them down morally unacceptable paths that the Church would reject. The fact, for example, that they do NOT ground these other rights and concerns in the fundamental right to life of all human beings without exception is a fatal flaw in much of modern secular liberalism, as Pope John Paul often observed. But that doesn’t mean being “progressive” is always and inherently evil. You have to take each issue and see where Church teaching leads, then, without compromising your own integrity, try to work with the people who may share that same goal at a given time.

 

[estesbob]

Would it have been that difficult for the USCCB to find a definitely pro-life Catholic for this position?

It appears they did. i hardly think you can judge a persons qualifications based on one dinner party.