Posted on 07/07/2004 12:07:24 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
"I oppose abortion personally. ... I believe life does begin at conception." So said John Kerry last week in Iowa.
Remarkable. If Kerry believes life begins at conception, he must concede that each time he has voted to fund abortions, he has voted to fund the killing of human beings. And voting to uphold Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban, Kerry voted against sparing tiny human beings from an excruciating form of execution.
How does John Kerry reconcile this?
"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," says Kerry.
But Kerry is not being asked to vote to force Jews or atheists to attend church on Sunday or recite the Apostles' Creed. He is only being asked to vote "no" to the spending of tax dollars to finance the destruction of what he himself says is human life.
Kerry protests that he does not want to impose his religious beliefs on nonbelievers. Yet, legislators have voted to outlaw prostitution, to punish those who use and/or sell drugs, and to ban child pornography. Each time they voted to criminalize such conduct, they sought to impose their moral beliefs upon dissenters.
Civil-rights laws do the same thing. When John Kerry votes to outlaw discrimination against blacks, women and gays, he votes to impose his idea of what is right behavior on those who think they should be free not to serve, not to rent to and not to hire people they don't want to serve, rent to or hire.
But with abortion, we are not talking about black folks being insulted by not being served at Denny's. If Kerry is right, we are talking about killing.
And if Kerry is truly "personally opposed to abortion," why does he not declare this strong personal belief from the podium at the feminist rallies to which he is invited? Why does he not speak up and say: "While I cannot stop abortion, you can. You should stop destroying human life." That would be moral courage – and the end of Kerry in a Democratic Party in which abortion is fast becoming a sacrament.
Yet, if the disconnect between Kerry's beliefs and actions is stark and inexplicable, what are we to say of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has set up, under Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, a seven-member task force to study what the sanction should be for Catholic politicians who vote to fund abortions and vote against judges who believe the unborn have a right to life.
But what is there to study, Your Eminence?
The Church has always taught that abortion is the killing of the innocent and intrinsically evil. When some of us were growing up, men in organized crime were denied burial in sacred ground. What are these abortion clinics other than killing houses?
Catholicism used to produce a different kind of prelate. In 1953, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans issued a pastoral letter: "(L)et there be no further discrimination or segregation in the pews, at the Communion rail, at the confessional and in parish meetings, just as there will be no segregation in the kingdom of heaven."
Resistance to integration of the parochial schools was fierce. The battle went on for a decade. Catholics appealed to the Vatican. Pius XII backed up the archbishop. In the Louisiana Legislature, bills were introduced forbidding integration of the Catholic schools, bills supported by Catholic legislators. The archbishop's response was to threaten the Catholic lawmakers with excommunication.
When the rabid segregationist Leander Perez of Plaquemine Parish persisted, Archbishop Rummel excommunicated him and the head of the Citizens Council of Louisiana for "continuing to provoke the devoted people of this venerable archdiocese to disobedience or rebellion in the matter of opening our schools to all Catholic children."
Now, there was an archbishop.
Yet, serious as segregation was, it does not compare in evil with 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, many of which have been funded through federal programs voted for by Catholic legislators.
Forty-eight Catholic members of Congress have written to Cardinal McCarrick, warning of "great harm" to the Church and a backlash against Catholics should bishops begin denying the Holy Eucharist to congressmen who vote to support and fund abortions.
Cardinal McCarrick should take this as a challenge – and ask himself how St. Thomas More would have reacted to this threat. Then, go forth and do likewise, Your Eminence.
While I have my disagreements with Mr. Buchanan, particularly regarding his blind, anger-driven, irrational hatred of Israel, the sole outpost of our civilization and our only real ally in the region, this article is dead on. He has completely destroyed the ridiculous farcial positions of Kerry, Gephardt, Durbin and every other pro-abortion Catholic.
This is truly Buchanan at his best. I hope that as a real Catholic, he'll make it his personal mission to expose frauds like Kerry, Kennedy and the rest.
Buchannan gets it right again.
Ping. Ball now in Catholic Court. Will there be a return?
I'm keeping score. Patrick Buchanan gets it right 27.8% more often than George W. Bush. Phylis Schlafly gets it right 23.7% more often than George W. Bush. William Buckley Jr. gets it right 15.3% more often than George W. Bush. Alan Keyes gets it right 31.7% more often than George W. Bush.
I'm now going to get flamed. :-)
Cardinal McCarrick should take this as a challenge – and ask himself how St. Thomas More would have reacted to this threat. Then, go forth and do likewise, Your Eminence.
St. Thomas More became a martyr for his beliefs. St. McCarrick???
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Pro-life ping!
Because those folks whom you cite are always {to the ] right [of Bush ]?
"Kerry protests that he does not want to impose his religious beliefs on nonbelievers. Yet, legislators have voted to outlaw prostitution, to punish those who use and/or sell drugs, and to ban child pornography. Each time they voted to criminalize such conduct, they sought to impose their moral beliefs upon dissenters."
No good liberal has ever allowed logic to stand in the way of emotion. Hence the appeal of their philosophy to certain non-senescient members of the public.
When a leader says one thing but does another, that is call hypocracy. The Bishop needs to affirm catholic doctrine and take Kerry to task or step down.
Sadly, I laughed out loud when I read that. What do you suppose McCarrick's beliefs are? Do the Unitarians name saints?
The secularists, unfortunately, aren't hamstrung by such scruples. They'd be happy to legislate John Kerry's religion out of existance tomorrow if they could get away with it.
BTTT
This is truly Buchanan at his best. I hope that as a real Catholic, he'll make it his personal mission to expose frauds like Kerry, Kennedy and the rest.
___
I second that emotion.
Gephardt is not a Catholic. He ran as pro-life in this heavily Catholic district until he realized that Catholic elders responded more to "Sosal Security" than to the killing of unborn children and that if he wanted a national leadership position he needed to kiss the ring of the abortion lobby.
And of course McCarrick is typical of so many post_Vatican II church leaders, who need to check and see if there is still a sack hanging below.
What on earth can McCarrick gain by being such a weenie? He could never be pope. He can't go any "higher" in the Church.
In light of such deliberate deception, I am wondering how one could reach a conclusion other than that McCarrick is a pro-abort and unworthy of his office.
McCarrick is like so many prelates, and ordinary Catholics. They just want to be liked by the imporrant people in society. They want this more than they want to be saints.
I don't often agree with Mr. Buchanan, but he is right on target with this one.
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.