Catholic House Democrats Beg to Dissent from Church Teaching on Abortion

Vivificat! - A Personal Catholic Blog of News, Commentary, Opinion, and Reflections ^ | 2 March 2006 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Their attempt to dress up their dissent from Church teaching fails miserably upon careful analysis.

Folks, according to Beliefnet:

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of 55 Catholic House Democrats on Tuesday (Feb. 28) acknowledged the "moral leadership" of the Catholic Church but said they will remain "in disagreement with the church" on some issues, including abortion rights.

The "statement of principles" resurrects a battle from the 2004 elections when some Catholic politicians -- especially Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry -- found themselves at odds with church leaders over their support of abortion rights. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who spearheaded the statement, said Catholic Democrats did not want to see Catholic faith defined solely by a "one-issue, very narrow right-wing agenda."

"This is about the whole notion that the Catholic purpose is not defined by one issue," DeLauro said in an interview, "and what we wanted to try to do was instead of other people defining us, we needed to try to define ourselves."

Commentary. I haven't seen the statement yet, but if the few reports out there are correct and on the mark, the stance of these Catholic politicians is deeply flawed and hypocritical. Perhaps we need to remind them that Pope John Paul the Great, in his Apostolic Exhortation entitled Christifideles Laici stated clearly:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

Further, their stance on the "primacy of conscience" is also skewed to favor their dissent. In his masterful encyclical letter, Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul noted that:

Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to "exhort consciences" and to "propose values", in the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices. (Emphasis his)

The Pope also noted:

Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

The Democrats in Congress are desperately seeking for a way that will allow them to portray themselves as "Catholics in good standing" while at the same time actively or passively supporting policies that are inimical to the good and welfare of individual human beings and to society as a whole. In this vain quest, they will co-opt Catholic doctrine if necessary, to push their agenda and regain their legitimacy before observant Catholics of both main parties.

They are wrong, and their servile stance in favor of the Culture of Death can only be justified by an appeal to the supremacy of individual conscience and a selective reading of Catholic morality. This must be pointed out repeatedly, less it becomes a commonly accepted "fact," at least more common than what it is now.

Don't let yourself be deceived! These 55 Democrats are not even contemplating the possibility of debating their party's stance in favor of abortion. What this "Statement" means is that the Democrat Party now counts with yet another blessing from their Catholic members of Congress for the Party's pro-abortion stance and a reassurance to the Party's ultraliberal base that no internal debate is forthcoming or even thought necessary by their Catholic lawmakers.

In Spanish we have a saying: La puerca, aunque de seda se vista, puerca se queda which may be translated as "No matter how much you dress up a pig, it will not become a lady, it will remain a pig." These 55 members of Congress may think they have succeeded in dressing up their dissent from Catholic teaching with high-sounding phrases and pledges of loyalty and "serious consideration," but in the end, their dissent remains a dissent and their pig, a pig.

Pro-lifers, please vote accordingly.

[Convert from ECUSA]

I was quoting from comment #7, which was not posted by me but by Teofilo. It was his word, not mine!

[Teófilo]

The word you want is "flout", not "flaunt"....just a linguistic bug of mine.

My bad!

-Theo

[TigersEye]

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of 55 Catholic House Democrats on Tuesday (Feb. 28) acknowledged the "moral leadership" of the Catholic Church but said they will remain "in disagreement with the church" on some issues, including abortion rights.

The "statement of principles" resurrects a battle from the 2004 elections when some Catholic politicians -- especially Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry -- found themselves at odds with church leaders over their support of abortion rights.

What is the principled stand behind shredding babies, burning them to death with saline or stabbing them in the back of the head with scissors and vacuuming their brains out? Is this just sKerry's way of justifying all the "atrocities" he committed in Veetnam? And the others? What's their excuse?

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Adverse Effects

Total Abortions since 1973

45,951,133

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)