Posted on 05/20/2004 6:19:23 AM PDT by NYer
Edited on 05/20/2004 8:46:00 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Forty-eight Roman Catholic members of Congress have warned in a letter to Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington that U.S. bishops will revive anti-Catholic bigotry and severely harm the church if they deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.The letter's signers, all Democrats, include at least three House members with strong antiabortion voting records.
"For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope," they wrote. ". . . While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome."
The three-page letter, dated May 10, was sent to McCarrick because he heads a task force of U.S. bishops that is considering whether, and how, the church should take action against Catholic politicians whose public positions are at odds with Catholic doctrine.
McCarrick's spokesman, Susan Gibbs, said he would not comment on the letter. She said the seven-member task force is "listening to many different voices" and will grant the 48 House members' request for a meeting. "They will be heard. It just hasn't been arranged yet," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
According to the article, the three pro-life House Democrats who signed the bill were Bart Stupak of Michigan (the UP and the "index and middle fingers" of the LP), Jim Langevin of RI and Mike Doyle of PA (Pittsburgh and its close-in suburbs). However, I found the letter here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/letter_to_mccarrick_05-10-2004.pdf and I found two other generally pro-life Democrats who signed on to it: Tim Ryan of OH (Mahoning Valley and Akron) and Jim Oberstar of MN (Iron Range). I guess those guys have decided to place politics ahead of their faith.
But the most interesting thing to note is that only 48 House Democrats signed the letter, even though there are probably close to 100 Catholic Democrats in the House. I counted a dozen pro-life Catholic Democrats in the House who did not sign on to the letter (there are probably others that I missed), perhaps because they agree with the bishops' position, but most probably because they don't want to get involved or else fear a political backlash from pro-life voters: Congressmen McNulty (NY), Crowley (NY), Holden (PA), Kanjorski (PA), Murtha (PA), Kleczka (WI), Michaud (ME), Neal (MA), Ortiz (TX), Lipinski (IL), Costello (IL) and Chris John (LA). I would hope that the media will seek their reaction to the letter, but I'm not holding my breath.
Jim Obey, who is pro-life some of the time, did not sign the letter, nor did pro-lifer Jerry Kleczka.
Among Massachusetts Democrats, Stephen Lynch is pro-abortion, although Richard Neal is pro-life, as was Joe Moakley.
"Non Serviam" seems to be their answer to the Church. They've chosen their master and he isn't the same one they were Confirmed to. How said, a masse apostacy.
Well, the bishops now have a list of names to work with.
The only problem is the voices they are listening to most likely are coming from the mouth of a head spinning around backwards in a house in Georgetown.
"Am I under an obligation to actively stop a person from getting drunk?"
What a goofy analogy. A better question is do you have an obligation towards LIFE if you are a legislator? Both in Catholic belief and Natural Law, the answer is YES. As a Deacon you should be supporting the Pope in this. You have a higher obligation of OBEDIANCE.
Exactly.
<< .... anti-Catholicism ... [Is] of the past [But] attempts by Church leaders today to influence [Professed Catholics] by .... withholding the Sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice ... >>
Bullsh*t.
I do support the Pope.
I don't recall the Pope declaring that anybody should be refused the Eucharist.
Ahh....Sinky....the Daschle excommunication was LAST year; the Burke letters were LAST year...
Furthermore, election years are the ONLY time to remind voters of who the baby-killers are.
There was no Daschle excommunication. There was a Daschle letter.
The Catholic pol, in good conscience, may vote for a bill which restricts abortion--a change from the current situation.
He may not vote to fund it, or continue it as it is.
Death penalty and war votes are not congruent issues with the abortion issue.
The Church has NO doctinal prohibition of death penalty and war decisions are prudential, reserved to the nation's leadership (I assume we are talking about Iraq...)
You have a very good facility for asking questions which are non-sequiturs, or which confuse fundamental issues.
I'll ignore those for the sake of brevity.
It's the best way.
What is the moral rationale that prevents a Catholic politican from voting to suffer abortion under threat of excommunication?
FR keyword search Colorado Springs Bishop should get you there. Otherwise, http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/weblog.php?id=0, search on Colorado Springs Bishop.
LOL!! You don't answer questions you can't, or don't want, to answer.
Give me a break.
Such a move by bishops would bolster my respect for the Catholic leadership.
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.