Replies

Anyone catch this response from Catholics for Dean? (Just for the record, I agree with Vere when he calls them "Katholics for Dean")

Dear editors (of CatholicCitizens.org and EnterStageRight.com),

Please allow me to respond to Pete Vere's recent assessment of the site, CatholicsforDean.com.

Because my orthodoxy and personal morality are in question (e.g. I am "skipping to Hell"), I will answer primarily with quotes from the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," with brief comments about what I take these quotes to mean.

My first concern is that Mr. Vere repeatedly implies that abortion is an issue for Catholics only. For instance, by stating that, "To a practicing Catholic, what lay in a woman’s womb is not just some anonymous blob of cancerous tissue," Vere unwittingly endorses the common view that the pro-life movement is a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on everyone else. To the contrary, the Pope teaches:

"The Gospel of life is not for believers alone: it is for everyone. The issue of life and its defence and promotion is not a concern of Christians alone. Although faith provides special light and strength, this question arises in every human conscience which seeks the truth and which cares about the future of humanity. Life certainly has a sacred and religious value, but in no way is that value a concern only of believers. The value at stake is one which every human being can grasp by the light of reason; thus it necessarily concerns everyone."(section 101)

I do not contend that Mr. Vere does not agree with the above, but I would argue that his rhetorical approach to this issue ignores this teaching. If the pro-life movement is ever to gain traction with the 50% or so of Americans who remain pro-choice, it will be by patiently and persistently challenging the philosophically groundless claim that human life and personhood begins when the fetus leaves the womb. As long as right-to-life is seen as an exclusively Christian issue, our society will remain evenly divided and the right-to-abortion will remain. Mr. Vere's hateful condemnations, along with the overtly (and hypocritical) Christian rhetoric of President Bush so closely and widely associated with the pro-life movement in this country, are severely hurting the cause of bringing the Gospel of Life to our entire society.

In particular, I believe Mr. Vere makes a serious error in claiming that Catholics must cut off all connections with the Democratic Party. As he well knows, Governor Casey remained a Democrat even after he was silenced at the convention in 1992. I cannot speak for the good Governor, but I believe that striving to rebuild a strong voice in the Democratic party is exactly was Catholics ought to be doing. Not only is moving over to the Republican Party contrary to Catholic social teaching on virtually every issue other than abortion, but it also directly abandons the urgent cause of helping the pro-choice half of our troubled nation see the truth about abortion "which every human being can grasp by the light of reason." Will the Democratic Party be more likely to listen to a large and unified group of its fervent supporters, or an estranged group proclaiming allegiance to the opposing party at all costs? Granted, the Catholic voice in the Democratic party has been supressed for over a decade now, but is that any reason to give up this most important fight?

In addition, it is not I but the Holy Father who has proclaimed that the Christian commitment to life must not end with opposing abortion. Tell me whether the demands of the following paragraphs are generally better fulfilled by Democrats, the party of working people, or Republicans, the party of the wealthy. (Excuse my editorial labels of the parties--please do make this judgment as objectively as you can.)
"87. By virtue of our sharing in Christ's royal mission, our support and promotion of human life must be accomplished through the service of charity, which finds _expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment. This is a particularly pressing need at the present time, when the "culture of death" so forcefully opposes the "culture of life" and often seems to have the upper hand. But even before that it is a need which springs from "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6). As the Letter of James admonishes us: "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled', without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (2:14-17).

In our service of charity, we must be inspired and distinguished by a specific attitude: we must care for the other as a person for whom God has made us responsible. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to become neighbours to everyone (cf. Lk 10:29-37), and to show special favour to those who are poorest, most alone and most in need. In helping the hungry, the thirsty, the foreigner, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned-as well as the child in the womb and the old person who is suffering or near death-we have the opportunity to serve Jesus. He himself said: "As you did it to one of the least of these my breth- ren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40). Hence we cannot but feel called to account and judged by the ever relevant words of Saint John Chrysostom: "Do you wish to honour the body of Christ? Do not neglect it when you find it naked. Do not do it homage here in the church with silk fabrics only to neglect it outside where it suffers cold and nakedness".113

Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. We need then to "show care" for all life and for the life of everyone. Indeed, at an even deeper level, we need to go to the very roots of life and love.

It is this deep love for every man and woman which has given rise down the centuries to an outstanding history of charity, a history which has brought into being in the Church and society many forms of service to life which evoke admiration from all unbiased observers. Every Christian community, with a renewed sense of responsibility, must continue to write this history through various kinds of pastoral and social activity. To this end, appropriate and effective programmes of support for new life must be implemented, with special closeness to mothers who, even without the help of the father, are not afraid to bring their child into the world and to raise it. Similar care must be shown for the life of the marginalized or suffering, especially in its final phases."

I'll close with a few relevant tidbits about Howard Dean. Although he unfortunately supports the right to choose, he has gone well beyond the call of duty as Governor of Vermont to implement "appropriate and effective programs of support for new life," reaching out to mothers "afraid to bring their child into the world and to raise it" and helping these mothers choose life.

Gov. Dean provided health insurance for nearly every child and greatly improved education throughout the state, both of which take away some of the biggest worries that new mothers face. He also pioneered an innovative early childhood intervention program in Vermont, Success by Six, which resulted in 89% of pregnant women entering prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, under this remarkable program, 91% of families with a new birth now receive a community visit, and parents who need it get help and support. As a result, 81% of children are fully immunized by age 2 and 97% by the time they start kindergarten, and child and sexual abuse decreased by 45%. Of particular importance (considering that 4 of 10 teen pregnancies end in abortion), teen pregnancy decreased by 49% during Dean's time in Vermont, and Vermont now has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Dean has already announced his intention to expand all these programs to a national scale. Do I dare ask Catholics to help him make that happen?

Sincerely, Tim Huegerich

Here is Vere's reply over at Envoy Encore: -------------------- Not Just Abortion The Church vs. Dean on other pro-life issues Pete Vere

Over the past couple of days, Catholics for Dean has challenged me to go beyond the abortion issue and compare Dean's record on other pro-life issues to Catholic social teaching. As I have already pointed out, such an action is moot. The right-to-life is the fundamental right upon which all other rights within Catholic social teaching are derived.

Nevertheless, if we are to objectively examine these secondary issues, the Republican record still withstands any comparison to that of the Abortion party. For next to abortion, the stability of marriage stands as the most important issue within the right-to-life movement.

This is why I found the following "definition of pro-life" proposed by "Catholics for Dean" so disingenuous:

Catholic Social Teaching says that in order to be "pro-life" one must oppose ALL violations of human life and the dignity thereof. This includes not just abortion, but also capital punishment, euthanasia, infanticide, and most wars. In 1992, Vatican Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini stated that "among the individuals and groups against legalized abortion in the United States, there are some who support the continuation of capital punishment. This is an inconsistency and an unacceptable contradiction." In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life) Pope John Paul II said that our society is more and more tainted by a "culture of death," in which society has become indifferent toward human rights. In a January 27, 1999 mass in St. Louis, the Pontiff called for all Christians to be "unconditionally pro-life."

Applying the Church's teaching, it is obvious that George W. Bush is NOT pro-life. Even though Howard Dean does not oppose abortion, he is still more pro-life than Bush due to his opposition to the Iraq war and his partial opposition to capital punishment. So pay no attention to those claims that Howard Dean is not pro-life. Just say, "Well, he's more pro-life than Bush."

First of all, note the absence of any mention of the Church's teaching (or Governor Dean's history) with regards to homosexual unions so-called. I will deal with this issue in more detail a little further down. Nevertheless, given how prominent this issue is within the right-to-life movement, its absence from a (proposed) "definition of pro-life" is rather telling. The debate is being framed. This suggests that rather than an honest comparisson of both parties when it comes to pro-life issues, "Catholics for Dean" is seeking to co-opt the pro-life vote into supporting the Democrat Party. However, abortion affects how the Democrats approach all other life issues as well. For example, concerning...

Capital Punishment

Vice President Gore, asked by NBC's Tim Russert whether he agreed with the current prohibition on federal executions of pregnant women, laughed and said, "I'd want to think about it." (Meet the Press, July 16, 2000) On July 17, "Mr. Gore said he favored allowing a pregnant woman to choose whether to delay her execution until she gave birth. 'The principle of a woman's right to choose governs in that case,' he said." (The New York Times, July 18) Gore's position implicitly repudiates the innocent child principle embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 3596, both of which flatly prohibit the government from taking the child's life.

Euthanasia

Earlier this week, Dean criticized Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) for signing Terri's Law that allowed him to ask doctors to reinsert her feeding tube.
"What business is it of the government to interfere with a private family matter with a right-to-die case?" asked Dean. "I am tired of people in the Legislature thinking that they have an M.D. with what they really have is a B.S."
He said Florida residents should be "embarrassed" by Bush's decision.
Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre said the governor found Dean's remarks "shameful."
"Gov. Bush doesn't think that it's appropriate for a presidential candidate to be so flip about a serious issue that involves not only protecting the rights of the disabled, but also the fundamental right to life that is guaranteed in the Florida Constitution," DiPietre said.
Pamela Hennessy - spokeswoman for Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler - called Dean's comments "a monumental display of bad taste in every way imaginable."
"Obviously, he doesn't know every aspect of the case," Hennessy told the Cybercast News Service, "and I think he's using it as platform just to take a swing, verbally, at Gov. Bush."
She was not surprised that Dean would oppose the fight to save Terri's life and provide her with the medical and rehabilitative care that her estranged husband Michael has denied.
Dean is on record supporting assisted suicide, Hennessy explained.
Meanwhile, President Bush said in late October that he agreed with his brother's decision to save Terri's life.
"Yes, I believe my brother made the right decision,'' President Bush said in response to a reporter's question at a news conference

Infanticide

"For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way," Bush told religious leaders, members of Congress and other abortion foes at a signing ceremony at the Ronald Reagan Building. "Today at last the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child."
There was sharp criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts called the law "a step backwards for women." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a physician, said it would "chill the practice of medicine and endanger the health of countless women." Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut called it a triumph for "the political agenda of right-wing Republicans." Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said it threatened a return "to the dark days before Roe v. Wade."

War

Interestingly enough, the GOP aren't as weak here as one would think. As Jeff Miller notes, who authorized Clinton's war in Kosovo -- which Howard Dean supported? Where did the Holy Father stand with regards to Clinton's military action here? Was the skirmish this past fall between Dean and Clark ever resolved over whether or not Dean had invited Clark to be his running mate? These are all questions the Abortion Party may wish to consider before throwing stones at the GOP over Iraq. Matthew Rothschild makes the following interesting allegations in The Progressive concerning a current DNC front-runner whom the Dean campaign has reportedly woo as a running mate:

During the Kosovo war, Clark also repeatedly targeted Yugoslavia's TV headquarters, killing twenty people there.
"At least 1,200 civilians have died in NATO accidents," Steven Erlanger of The New York Times reported at the end of the war.

On May 27, 1999, The Wall Street Journal ran an article that said: "On the sensitive topic of civilian casualties, Gen. Clark emphasized that no air war was perfect and that, to prevail, the (NATO) ambassadors should brace themselves for more collateral damage."

During the war, Clark also fobbed off the problems facing the hundreds of thousands of refugees in Kosovo whom the Serbs predictably forced out after NATO started the bombing. Refusing to drop relief supplies to the refugees, Clark said, "Our view on this is that, frankly, this is a problem that's caused by President Milosevic. He needs to address this problem."

But again, from a pro-life perspective these are merely tertiary issues when comparing Dean and his fellow Abortion Party presidential candidates to the Republican President Bush. Let's get back to the more important -- namely the sanctity of marriage as opposed to homosexual unions.

Here is where Howard Dean stands:

I’m proud to say that as Governor of Vermont, I signed legislation to grant same gender couples the right to enter into civil unions. This law, the first of its kind in the United States, guarantees lesbian and gay couples the same basic legal rights that married couples enjoy: the right to inherit property, obtain child custody, visit a partner in the hospital, and control a partner’s affairs upon death.

The Republican Party seems eager to run against me because of my role in enactment of this historic law. I welcome that debate -- I can’t wait to ask the President of the United States why he doesn’t support equal rights. I can’t wait to ask him to repudiate the GOP-authored Defense of Marriage Act, an unconstitutional, mean-spirited law that stoked fears of homosexuality and pitted one group of Americans against another.

Here is where the Catholic Church stands:

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”. [...]
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

In short, when pro-life issues are examined as a whole, a well-formed Catholic conscience simply is not capable of supporting any of the current Democrat presidential candidates. Thus the only option for practicing Catholics in the next election among the two major parties is President Bush and the GOP.