Green Room

Catholic Political Ad “Test of Fire” Continues to Make Waves

posted at 11:13 am on June 1, 2012 by

In a recent political ad, Catholics Called to Witness (CC2W) tells Catholics to look at all of the issues facing America this November (including energy, jobs and the economy). Among these issues are gay marriage, abortion, and religious freedom/the contraceptive mandate. Near the end, the ad (which has gone viral in the nearly three months it’s been out) says votes related to these three issues “will affect the future–and be recorded in eternity.”

Personally, I thought the ad was right on point–abortion and the contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient mandate are, in my opinion, two critical political issues this fall for any Catholic in good standing with the Church, and every Catholic should oppose gay marriage. However, this ad naturally drew controversy. One person who opposed the ad’s message was Frank Cocozelli, a New York City lawyer who writes for the liberal blog Daily Kos. Unfortunately, Cocozelli makes a couple of significant errors in his post, and is misleading at other points.

First, Cocozelli says Catholics Called to Witness claims some issues (life, marriage and religious freedom) are “non-negotiable,” and indicates they are prioritizing the issues as an independent organization. This is technically inaccurate. While the group does say this in the ad, CC2W is merely repeating the Catholic Church’s official position on the matters. While the Church’s moral positions on issues that do not concern grave or intrinsic evils (such as those relating to immigration, health care and social justice) are to be heeded, the Church acknowledges that the complexity of the issue is such that the respective moral concerns may be addressed by a number of acceptable proposals. Thus, the Church defers to the “prudential judgment” of statesmen and policy professionals, without regard to partisanship. This deferential treatment is not given to gay marriage, abortion or contraceptives.

Second, Cocozelli disputes claims that President Obama is anti-Catholic. While I think it is debatable as to whether or not the contraceptive mandate was specifically meant to target the Church, it is not debatable that the Church will likely be compelled to shut down its hospitals (about one-sixth of all hospital beds in the nation are Catholic), schools and other religiously-affiliated organizations across the nation should the contraceptive mandate be in place come August 2013. It is also fairly clear that the Administration misled Archbishop Dolan regarding the mandate in November 2011.

Third, Cocozelli says “…there may be more going on here than using Catholic damnation anxiety as a tool to roll back marriage equality and reproductive rights. The video may also be part of a wider effort to eradicate public education.” Eradicate public education? To back this rather sensational accusation, Cocozelli cites associations the video’s creators have with several groups like the Home School Legal Defense Association (HLDSA). However, Jeremiah Lorrig, Director of Media Relations for HSLDA, told me the organization’s mission is to “promote parental rights so they can decide on the best educational choices for their children … public or private.” Michael Ramey, Director of Communications & Research for – another group targeted by Cocozelli – e-mailed me the following:  “Millions of parents all over the country rely on public schools as the means by which they exercise their right to direct their child’s education. They will continue to do so under [our proposals]. Any charge to the contrary is ridiculous.”

Fourth, the author writes that CC2W’s prioritization of ““the right of parents to educate their children… is a curious cause for a group of Catholic orthodox types to champion. There is nothing in Church teachings that make this a priority on par with any other social justice teaching.” This statement by Cocozelli seems at odd with the Church’s Canon Law, which among other things says “Parents must possess a true freedom in choosing schools; therefore, the Christian faithful must be concerned that civil society recognizes this freedom for parents and even supports it with subsidies; distributive justice is to be observed.”  The statement also ignores this Catholic University of America speech by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 in which he specifically highlighted the importance of education in and to the Church.

Finally, Cocozelli says the ad explicitly implies damnation to hell if one votes for a candidate (i.e., President Obama) who supports the three “non-negotiables.” However, my viewing of the ad is merely that a voter who will support candidates in opposition to the Church on these moral and faith teachings will have to own that support–as they will have to own every act in their lives–when facing Christ at the gates of heaven.

Before writing this post I managed to track down Cocozelli’s law office in New York to ask him about his knowledge related to the Church being correct on all matters of faith and morals. He explained that he was indeed raised Catholic, and indicated he felt social justice issues were paramount, as opposed to the non-negotiables described in the ad. I left my conversation with Cocozelli on cordial terms, and I think his intent in going after the ad was well-intentioned (as opposed to, say, this Daily Kos poster, who apparently believe the video’s message was organized by the Church’s hierarchy). Unfortunately, though, it seems his political viewpoints got in the way of the facts on a number of occasions, most importantly in ways that could mislead the reader as to how Catholics ought to make decisions on political decisions related to faith and morals.

[This was posted in its original form at]


Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Seems to me that public educators are doing just fine in eradicating public education, they don’t need the Catholic Church’s help at all.

NoDonkey on June 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM

There are two types of religious people:

1) Those who’s theology shapes their political views.
2) Those who’s political views shape their theology

Cocozelli and three of my siblings are number 2. I’ve been in my brother’s church. Nobody had their own Bible. They all got up and got a Bible off of a shelf of them, read the two cherry-picked and out of context verses, put the Bibles back and then listened to the preacher telling them those two verses mean all Christian churches that criticize sin are evil.

It was a sickening experience for me.

PastorJon on June 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM

While the Church’s moral positions on issues that do not concern grave or intrinsic evils (such as those relating to immigration, health care and social justice) are to be heeded

So splain at me why the Church’s very own principle of subsidiarity (social responsibility begins at the bottom not at the top)is ignored in the USCCB’s funding of ACORN, and their backfired political insistence on “Caesar run” universal health care? Why do they tell us the Official Catholic Catechism holds that immigration issues are the business of the laity and then push the opposite at the highest levels of the USCCB(an immigration” titled bishop yet? – who informs the laity about Obamacare?)
And the big question: Why has the salvation of individual souls seemingly become secondary to “social justice” issues -often those very things so desired by the Godless political left?

Don L on June 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Cocozelli could use a little education….. he is obviously a shill for partisan politics and a flaming, intolerant, liberal.

ultracon on June 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The communist now in charge of our country, has shown his disdain for religion. I can only hope that a president Romney (a very religious man) has the time, energy, and political powers to correct, what this communist enabler has done to us all. May god help us.

WV. Paul on June 1, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Frank Cocozelli, a New York City lawyer who writes for the liberal blog Daily Kos.

Anyone associated with Daily Kos isn’t sane. Why you would even pay them any attention is questionable.

woodNfish on June 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Finally, Cocozelli says the ad explicitly implies

Implicit, or explicit. Take your pick, but it can’t be both.

Libraritarian on June 4, 2012 at 12:22 AM