Representative Steve Vaillancourt disgraces the New Hampshire House of Representatives

Remember when New Hampshire Republican Steve Vaillancourt from Manchester defended the inappropriate comments made by Representative D.J. Bettencourt on Facebook last year in which he referred to Bishop John McCormack as a "pedophile pimp." Vaillancourt wrote, "This pedophile enabler has blood (and perhaps other bodily fluids) both figuratively and perhaps literally on his hands...The Bishop has disgraced the Catholic Church."  See here.

The highly emotional and erratic Republican lawmaker had to be physically removed from the state House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon after making a Nazi salute during a contentious debate about limiting what is considered valid voter identification.  The Huffington Post is reporting that the angry Republican "shouted, 'Sieg Heil' and moved his hand in the air after House Speaker William O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon) restricted what he could address during a floor debate on an amendment to a state voter ID bill. O'Brien had restricted what Vaillancourt could say about the full bill, saying that he could not reference the House Election Law Committee's discussion, only the issues presented in the committee report.


O'Brien, who had previously threatened to toss Vaillancourt from the floor, used Vaillancourt's outburst to have the veteran lawmaker moved off the floor. It is the first time in at least a decade that a House member has been removed from the chamber in New Hampshire. House members then voted 238 to 103 to allow Vaillancourt to apologize to the full chamber in order to be allowed back in, setting off further debate when Vaillancourt did not apologize in the manner that O'Brien had expected.

'Part of the apology is to get the record straight. I did not use the word 'Hitler,' Vaillancourt said before O'Brien ordered him away from the podium.

State House police were called to remove Vaillancourt from the chamber, where he was sitting in his seat, with several House members tweeting that he would not leave. Rep. Christopher Serlin (D-Portsmouth) tweeted that "Stand Our Ground" was shouted by House members just before police physically removed Vaillancourt from the chamber. O'Brien also had Vaillancourt's voting card taken from him to prevent him from casting votes. A committee was formed by O'Brien that would meet with Vaillancourt to discuss his apology." (See here).

Dr. Germain Grisez, addressing the responsibilities which accompany communication, writes, "All communication should be open to community, and mutual good will and honor are essential for that purpose.  Pleasantness in speech and manner manifests good will and the desire to please others.  Marks of courtesy - polite words, gestures, and other actions - manifest not only respect for persons insofar as they are persons, but the honor appropriate for each in accord with his or her social status, the relationship of persons, and other circumstances (S.t., 2-2, q. 114, a. 1).  Hence, in communicating, people should always be courteous and pleasant (See Col 4: 6), unless it is unavoidable to sadden others or there is some reason for not trying to please them."

Representative Vaillancourt had no such reason.  His was merely a temper tantrum, an emotional outburst because he couldn't have his own way.  For that reason, the sophomoric lawmaker should be censured appropriately.

Mr. Gerard Villemure of Goffstown, New Hampshire gets it right

Area Catholics are reacting to House Majority leader D.J. Bettencourt's highly inappropriate description of Bishop John McCormack as a "pedophile pimp."  In an article published in The Union Leader, Goffstown resident Gerard Villemure responded in a most beautiful way.  Mr. Villemure was quoted as having said, "...we know the Bishop has problems, but we have to be respectful of our priests and bishop..It was uncalled for.  It's too bad.  It hurts the Church...We are all human."

There is a man who is not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.  How easy it is to forget  the words of St. Augustine: interficere errorem, diligere errantem: kill the error, love the one who errs.  Put another way, hate the sin, love the sinner.  Judging by many of the horrific comments which accompany the Union Leader article, it would appear that far too many people have forgotten this maxim.

We expect much from our priests.  And much more from a Bishop of the House of God.  In a book entitled "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald," then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI is asked a question by German journalist Seewald:

"If they [priests] have been called by Christ himself, why are there bad priests?  Why are there even bad bishops?  In the case of some of those he has chosen the Lord obviously seems to have made a mistake."

Cardinal Ratzinger's response:

"It certainly can happen that people slip through, as it were, without really having received a call.  But there are also 'failed callings,' that is, callings that are not truly lived out.  The strange thing is...God entrusts himself to such fragile vessels.  That he has taken such a horrible risk with the Church.  He has put himself into hands that betray him time and again.  And he has left us the opportunity of falling and of being corrupted, so that he still has to support the Church himself again and again through these very tools that have proved unsuitable.  It is a consolation, on the one hand, that the Lord is stronger than the sins of men, but, on the other hand, a great challenge for all those who have turned toward this calling and who believe they have received it to let it truly mature in fellowship with Christ." (p. 431).

This whole unfortunate affair could prove to be a teaching moment for the Church and the wider community.  For we all have to learn how to be more merciful: "They said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.  Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.  So what do you say?'...Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.  But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8: 7).

We all know what happened.  Each and every person who had been holding up a stone to hurl at the woman who had been caught in adultery dropped their stone and left the woman alone with Jesus.  Doesn't Bishop McCormack deserve the same? 

It would be so easy to just distance ourselves from Bishop McCormack.  But such an approach would be wrong.  As Dr. Germain Grisez has said, "When the Church suffers from the shameful misdeeds of a leading member, no one should distance himself or herself from the shame by joining the company of scorners; rather, everyone should accept some share in the shame and work to heal the wound."

Representative Steve Vaillancourt has blood on his hands

In a Blog post which may be found here, Republican Steve Vaillancourt from Manchester has defended the inappropriate comments made by Representative D.J. Bettencourt late last week on Facebook in which he referred to Bishop John McCormack as a "pedophile pimp."  Vaillancourt writes, "This pedophile enabler has blood (and perhaps other bodily fluids) both figuratively and perhaps literally on his hands...The Bishop has disgraced the Catholic Church."

It is most ironic that Rep. Vaillancourt would accuse anyone of having blood on their hands.  For Mr. Vaillancourt supports abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy.  See here.  And as Father Frank Pavone, Director of Priests for Life, has reminded us so often, "abortion itself is the worst form of child abuse."   If you doubt this for even a moment, view the photos at the Priests for Life website of aborted first trimester babies here.

I'm not a defender of Bishop McCormack.  For years I have said that he failed to protect children.  For years I opposed his toleration of the dissent group VOTF within the Diocese of Manchester.  I actually wrote him several times over the years expressing my concerns.  But always while maintaining respect for his priestly office, for his office as Bishop.  But for someone like Steve Vaillancourt who is supportive of the worst form of child abuse - the murder of innocents through abortion - to condemn another for having blood on their hands is, well, nothing less than blatant hypocrisy.

Has Bishop John McCormack disgraced the Catholic Church?  By no means.  He has disgraced himself alone.  New Hampshire Catholics are not responsible for the moral failings of Bishop McCormack.  Each of us is responsible for his own sins before God.  D.J. Bettencourt understands this deep down.  Which is why, in a conciliatory letter to Bishop McCormack, he wrote (in part): "My comments were in no way intended as an attack on the Catholic Church, or on the position which you hold...I came of age in the faith during the height of the sexual abuse scandal and when many were walking away from the Church.  I remained.  I stayed in the belief that the Christian faith and our Church were more than the few individuals who betrayed one of the greatest trusts a man can be given - that of a priest."

Rep. Vaillancourt has blood on his hands.  If he wants to see clearly enough to render judgments, he should first remove the plank from his own eye.

New Hampshire Representative D.J. Bettencourt views the Catholic Church in New Hampshire as being in a state of shame and dishonor

In these times of scandal it is critical to remember that the Church remains spotless even when Her members sin. There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members. Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand explains: "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins."

D.J. Bettencourt has lost sight of this.  The Huffington Post is reporting that, "The Republican leader of the New Hampshire House on Friday called Roman Catholic Bishop John McCormack a 'pedophile pimp' who should have been led from the Statehouse in handcuffs after speaking at a rally criticizing a state budget proposal.


McCormack was among about a dozen speakers at Thursday's rally to protest deep cuts to social services included in the House's $10.2 billion budget. Rep. D.J. Bettencourt of Salem took issue Friday, writing on his Facebook page that McCormack had no business urging lawmakers to protect the vulnerable, given his role in the clergy sex abuse scandal in the last decade."  See here.

When asked later about his language, Rep. Bettencourt responded, "Yes, my language was colorful, but I stand by the sentiment in describing a man who has in my opinion brought shame and dishonor on my church here in New Hampshire...As a practicing Catholic it is truly disappointing that we would have a leader with a record of enabling such egregious and unacceptable behavior."

So D.J. Bettencourt views the Catholic Church in New Hampshire as being in a state of shame and dishonor because of the personal failures of Bishop John McCormack.  Good to know.  Perhaps this exlains his inability to muster the necessary fortitude required to oppose same-sex "marriage" within the Granite State.  See here.

Representative Bettencourt has failed to understand that Bishop John McCormack's shame and dishonor is his own, not that of the entire People of God in New Hampshire.  The great Cardinal Journet would have told him that, "All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood.'" (Acts 20:28).

So here's where we're at folks: D.J. Bettencourt believes that any debate on repealing same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire should be put off until next year so that "full and undivided attention" may be focused on New Hampshire's "outstanding financial issues."  But he does have plenty of time to hurl stones at the Church.

Does D.J. Bettencourt really believe that conservative solutions are best for New Hampshire?

New Hampshire House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt has been quoted in The Union Leader as having said that, "It is our responsibility [Granite State conservatives] to teach them [young people] why conservative solutions are best for New Hampshire."  See here.  And yet, Rep. Bettencourt has also expressed his belief that any debate on repealing same-sex "marriage" should be put off until next year so that "full and undivided attention" may be focused on New Hampshire's "outstanding financial issues."

One has to wonder how committed D.J Bettencourt is toward preserving the traditional understanding of marriage or promoting conservative values and solutions.  In the same article cited above he is quoted as having said that, "..the GOP must address the issues that have traditionally been outside of our comfort zone, but which are significant to young voters...I believe we need to do more to attract them."

Would this include watering down opposition toward same-sex "marriage"? Is Bettencourt suggesting that it possible to reconcile conservative principles with the homosexual lifestyle or ideology?  Star Parker so eloquently refutes such an asinine notion.  She writes, "The idea of 'gay conservative' is an oxymoron. 'Gay' is everything that 'conservative' is not. The foundation of the worldview that so-called 'gay conservatives' embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism. It's a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. It is a worldview that rejects eternal truths passed on from the beginning of time. Although the worldview that 'gay conservatives' choose to invent may diverge from the worldview of liberals, their common ground is they make it all up. And it is here where 'gay conservatives' and 'liberals' fundamentally depart from conservatives. Conservatives believe that there are objective and eternal truths, not of the product of any individual human mind, that are transmitted through the generations. Culture is not like HDTV or iPhones where the newest model is the best. These eternal truths provide the light in the fog that keeps us from crashing on the rocky shores where our base instincts lead us. 'Gay' is liberal, not conservative, regardless of what their stand may be on government spending or taxes. It's why, like all liberals, they use language to create reality, rather than appreciate that words have meaning that reflect reality. So they have re-invented the word 'gay,' re-invented the word 'marriage', and now they want to re-invent the word 'conservative.' Finally, we will re-invent the word 'freedom' and we'll put the final stamp on the idea that a free society, rather than being the path to truth, is the path to meaninglessness. What individuals choose in private, and for which they bear personal responsibility, is separate from what we sanction publicly for which we all must bear responsibility. A value-neutral government is impossible. The central battle in our country today is about values and how we understand freedom. It is a battle for our very soul." (Full article here).

Is it D.J. Bettencourt's hope to re-define or re-invent what it means to be a New Hampshire conservative?  Is this what he means when he says that conservatives must leave their "comfort zone" and do more to attract young people?  Is this merely code for "let's change the ideals of the GOP in New Hampshire"?

Let's hope not.

The New Hampshire and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt get it wrong

The editorial staff of The New Hampshire, an independent student newspaper at the University of New Hampshire, are upset over two bills currently before the New Hampshire House: HB 437 and HB 443.  Both would ban same-sex "marriage" in the Granite State.

In an editorial which may be found here, the bright lights of The New Hampshire, suddenly concerned with the economy (a concern which was noticeably absent when legislators were pusing for same-sex "marriage" in a floundering economy), assert that, "...the larger issue behind this debate is that the House's insistence to focus on social issues is doing little to benefit the state at this time."  They go on to quote from House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, who told the Nashua Telegraph that it is his belief that "the same sex marriage repeal must be retained in the Judiciary Committee this year so that our full and undivided attention is focused on New Hampshire's outstanding financial issues."

Issues of morality are merely a distraction from financial issues?  Our nation's first president would have disagreed.  In his Farewell Address given on September 19, 1796, George Washington specifically warned that, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Any attack on the Common Good will have ramifications across the political and economic spectrum.  There is a direct connection between a nation's moral health and its economic health.  Which is why the United States is now in crisis.  Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.

Now where did I read that?

Related reading: The rot in values that is causing America's decline.