Posted on 04/24/2017 4:19:51 PM PDT by ebb tide
The 28 percent of Democrats who oppose abortion have no place in the Democratic party, according to two of the party’s leading figures.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin echoed party chair Tom Perez Sunday in saying that there is no room in the party for dissent on the abortion issue.
“I am committed to women’s rights under the law, reproductive rights certainly, and our party is [committed],” Durbin said in an appearance on CNN. “We’ve made that part of our platform and position for a long, long time. I know within the ranks of the Democratic Party there are those who see that differently on a personal basis, but when it comes to the policy position, I think we need to be clear and unequivocal.”
Durbin has already come under fire from his bishop. From 2014:
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is “not permitted to receive Holy Communion” under the law of the Catholic Church, according to Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, who heads the diocese of Springfield, Ill., which is Durbin’s home city.
…The bishop, in a recent letter to an Illinois pro-life activist, said, “Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his Pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law. My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the Senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.”
The pastor of Blessed Sacrament Parish at the time Durbin was told not to present himself for Communion was Rev. Kevin Vann, now the bishop for the diocese of Orange, Calif.
In a 2004 article, Rev. Vann said, “I respect Senator Durbin. I’ve known him for many years. I know he works hard in many fields. But his pro-choice position puts him really outside of communion or unity with the church’s teaching on life. And that’s why I would be reticent to give him Holy Communion.”
Canon 915 states:
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Sorry didn’t read entire article.
Here’s your hero, Humble Jorge:
“It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
**But his pro-choice position puts him really outside of communion or unity with the church’s teaching on life. And that’s why I would be reticent to give him Holy Communion.”**
He really isn’t a Catholic, then, just a CINO, Catholic in Name Only.
And the RATs like to call other people intolerant.
Paprocki is one of ten or fifteen bishops in the U.S. who have a CHANCE of not being damned. All the rest give Communion to pro-abortion “Catholics.”
She reconciled herself to the murder of 60 million babies with five magic words: Separation of Church and State.
It’s unfortunate that Paprocki made the common blunder of saying “reticent” when he meant “reluctant.”
And he should not have said “reluctant,” either. He should have said that giving Communion to Durbin would be preposterous and grotesque.
No way in hell 28% of democrat politicians oppose abortion. More lime 1% and that’s too high.
"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
(Mark 8:36)
Leni
A classmate of his who despises him told me Durbin used to run with a bunch who would entertain themselves by piling into a car and going down to East St. Louis [which was still fairly nice at the time] where they would drive along next to the sidewalks. One guy would hang out the window with a stick and thump unsuspecting black pedestrians in the head. They bragged about it in high school calling it “n—— polo.”
Said Durbin had to move in order to run for office he was such a notorious jerk.
This ought to prove that being being baptized Catholic is meaningless...It’s the relationship with Jesus that matters, in any denomination...
Regarding the fictional (imo) constitutional “right” to have an abortion, please consider the following.
Before the states amended the Bill of Rights (BoR) to the Constitution, the states decided not to obligate themselves to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. The states required only the feds to respect those rights.
So hypothetically speaking, even if the Founding States had included the express right to have an abortion in the BoR, there was nothing in the Constitution stopping the states from prohibiting abortion. Only the feds couldn’t deny women such a right.
But when the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A) they likewise obligated themselves to respect the rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, the so-called right to have an abortion not among those rights.
In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clearly indicated that the amendment applies to the states only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
But it remains that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion, the state sovereignty-ignoring justices who decided Roe v. Wade against the states did so without having a constitutionally enumerated right to have an abortion to throw at the states as Bingham had indicated.
In fact, consider that the Supreme Court didn’t agree with Virginia Minor when she argued that 14A gave her the right to vote, state sovereignty-respecting justices clarifying that 14A didn’t add any new rights to the Constitution. They indicated that 14A only strengthens rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protected.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And since the states hadn’t expressly constitutionally protected suffrage before 14A was ratified, 14A didn’t automatically create such a right when the states ratified it.
So consider that, in stark contrast to the states eventually amending the Constitution to give women the right to vote as evidenced by the 19th Amendment, it remains that the states have never likewise amended the Constitution to expressly protect the politically correct, vote-winning right to have an abortion.
The bottom line regarding abortion is this imo. Pro-abortion activist justices wrongly politically “amended” the so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion to the Constitution from the bench, ignoring not only the reasoning behind the Court’s previous decision in the Minor case, but also that the Court had also previously condemned interpolations of the Constitution.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Also, as a consequence of the Court’s unconstitutional decision in Roe v. Wade imo, lawless Democrats began to recognize that they had a source of unending votes to become career politicians.
More specifically, they began exploiting low-information women voters, women who evidently don’t understand major constitutional problems with non-enumerated, politically correct rights.
In other words, lawless Democrats, and eventually RINOs, began making use of the 19th Amendment, in conjunction with the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, to start winning the votes of many generations of women. Democrats did so by giving women the Constitution-ignoring assurance that lawmakers would be able to insure a majority of pro-abortion activist justices on the Supreme Court, along with unconstitutional federal funding for abortion, as long as women kept electing pro-abortion Democrats and RINOs to office.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.