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.
"Although I know well, Margaret, that because of my past wickedness I deserve to be abandoned by God, I cannot but trust in his merciful goodness. His grace has strengthened me until now and made me content to lose goods, land, and life as well, rather than to swear against my conscience."
Text of letter can be found here.
A_R
I'm not one to harp on misspellings, but it's hypocrisy.
But hypocracy is intriguing. Would that be a form of government run by pinheads?
Well, perhaps no so incorrect after all.
no=not... sheesh!
Yes. I usually agree with Buchanan. He does not let election politics trump pro-life.
AND...
Leander Perez repented.
"St. Thomas More became a martyr for his beliefs.
St. McCarrick???"
Dream on. McCarrick brings to mind St Chrysostom...
"The floors of hell are paved with the skulls of bad bishops".
And now for the real scandal:
Who elevated McCarrick to the sacred college of cardinals?
<< 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. >>
Wrong, Pat.
And shame on you for falling for such a ploy.
Kerry doesn't accept the irrefutable scientific FACT that life begins at conception, just -- in typical "DemocRAT" worm rat fink bastard mode -- states his "belief." His feelings. And those of his "faith."
Which he is most certainly not about to presume to shove down our throats.
The low-life cunning bastard.
Well said. But one cannot get on the convention platform of either party if he is a vocal pro-life speaker.
Pat is on target here, as he usually is. Of course, Pat is often vilified, but that's to be expected: he is a patriot who is loyal to this country alone, and a faithful Christian in a society increasingly given over to atheistic hedonism.
bump
Ping
Who is advising the Vatican on U.S. appointments to the hierarchy? The usual suspects?
Let's face it, McCarrick, Egan, Mahony, Keeler and the other phonies were appointed by someone in Rome. There is a larger problem to this whole process.
Are ALL the liberal dissenters on the abortion issue just homos? Is sodomy now costing the church a lot more than just money (but innocent lives)?
Not by me your not. I agree with you. I'm putting on my flame proof suit now.
On
Orthodox Catholic laity travelled to Rome at their own expense and begged the Pope to NOT elevate McCarrick because of his known problems. The Vatican listened to Bernardin's boys instead.
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.