Abortion foes cross line with attacks on elected officials (BARF ALERT)

Sacramento Bee ^ | 2/1/03 | Marjie Lundstrom

[ArrogantBustard]

Last I looked, California voters chose a Democrat to run this state, not the Vatican.

Fine. And if that democrat wants to support the wholesale, industrialized slaughter of the untermenchen, he should at least have the decency to quit pretending to be Catholic.

[toenail]

California abortion magnate Edward Allred long ago stated his reason for pushing abortion: cutting down the minority population. This BS about "rights of young girls to have their heads crushed by abortionists" is just so much blather. Everything that needs to be said about politicos and abortion can be summed up in two words: "racial demographics."

The Catholic Church has long championed the rights of minorities and worked to protect them from the schemes of those who fancy themselves People Breeders. What an incredibly vapid article. I don't even know where to start, this is so obtuse.

[MHGinTN]

Defense of the indefensible has been a plank in the despotic democrat party for too long. It is time to call them what they are, the pro-death party. Science tells us that an individual human life begins at conception and continues along a continuum hallmarked by ages defined by form and function of the individual's body at each stage in development. Is an embryo, for instance, conscious? No, but it is perfectly adapted to continue its life in the nevironmant where it resides and grows ... and that is the essence of form and function defining the ages of an individual lifetime.

Specious terms such as 'potential life' or 'non-sentient individual life' or 'fertilized ovum' are used to dehumanize the individuals to be exploited. Any interruption of life support along the continuum begun at conception that doesn't allow the individual to continue growth and development is the act of killing a unique individual human. Feticide is one such interruption that the democrat party, in order to gain votes, has championed as a woman's right while totally (death is pretty total disenfranchisement) disenfranchising the other individual human life existing in the woman's body. In reality, what the democrat party advocates is unequal rights and disenfranchising one group of invidiual humnas in favor of empowering a group who will vote blindly for the democrats.

Attack the democrat ghouls? Shucks, I want to throw them out of office in a landslide electorate statement!

[pgyanke]

Truly sad... and informative.

What underlies the article is the basic difference between the conservative and liberal agenda.

Examples: John Ashcroft was horribly vilified and continues to be attacked by the mainstream media for his "right-wing", "pro-life", "religious" views. However, he is on record stating that even in cases where he disagrees with the law as written or decided by the court, he will uphold it. He will work to change the law, surely, when he sees the oppotunity, but he upholds the current interpretation of the law as our chief law enforcement officer. It is rather revealing about his opponents that they "project" on him the very practice which has given them their advances. Since they have abbrogated the law repeatedly, so must he.

Gov Gray Davis, on the other hand, imposes his position by fiat. Rather than uphold the law (and live up to his oath), he supplants the law with his own perceptions of right and wrong. If he runs afoul of the law... it must be a bad law.

Our President is a man of integrity. Rather than imposing his views by fiat, he is upholding the law and encouraging others to do the same. Where there is gray area, he provides guidance. Where it is clear, he clearly states the position of our government. Where it runs against his personally held beliefs (as in partial-birth abortion), he calls for change.

Where the liberal side of the political spectrum change or ignore the laws to suit their agenda the conservative side upholds the law until our argument can prevail.

In the instances cited in the article, Gov Davis warrants sanction by the Catholic Church. He isn't just upholding the law and praying for change, he supports abortion. That is an untenable position for a practicing Catholic who wishes to be in concert with the Holy See. The good bishop was right to recommend Gov Davis not partake in communion while he supports the culture of death. Such an admonition is not a separation of church and state issue (whether separation of church and state is even appropriate is the subject for another thread) as the Church has not told him how to govern... only told him how to practice his faith.

Those who would use their religion as a political convenience should suffer the political bite when they do so poorly.

[EBUCK]

But explain, please, how Bishop Weigand -- for all his religious and moral authority -- has any business singling out an elected politician from the flock and publicly insisting he change his views? If this isn't an intrusion of church into state matters, then why isn't Weigand crawling inside the heads of all his parishioners and issuing a similar, pre-Communion challenge?

Uh, he voluntarily submits to the Catholic rule, that's where the Bishop gets such authority.

Where does gray-out get off claiming to be a Catholic, "every sperm is sacred" (pause for tasteless MPFC plug), while supporting abortion?

[Gophack]

the Church has not told him how to govern... only told him how to practice his faith.

EXACTLY!!!!

Davis has repeatedly, boastfully, and proudly said that he is pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, and pro-mandatory contraception (through insurance) even wanting to force Catholic hospitals to dispense the so-called "emergency contraception" pill (abortion). Few people in politics have been so in-your-face pro-abortion as Gray Davis -- who said he "makes no apologies" for his position, and still -- in public -- says that he can be a good Catholic AND be pro-abortion.

[Gophack]

You're right, and also remember that the Bishop in his statement said that politicans -- and ALL Catholics -- can not reconcile being a good Catholic with support for abortion. He mentioned Davis by name because Davis had publicly criticized a parish priest, Monsignor Kavanaugh, as well as refused to meet with the Bishop repeatedly to discuss this matter in private -- as the Bishop has been trying to do. But the Bishop DID issue the warning to ALL Catholics, regardless of their position in public life, and all of us need to take heed.

[Gophack]

Don't forget Margaret "Eugenics" Sanger. Planned Parenthood started to promote contraception and sterilization among the "masses" ... blacks, Mexicans, Irish, etc. Not wealthy whites.

[Coleus]

I just sent her this:

Living the Gospel of Life.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/gospel.htm

[Gophack]

Always a great read, but she will probably say, "So? Who cares what an old man in an ancient religion thinks? Separation of church and state, buddy."

We should pray for her.

[MonroeDNA]

I wonder what a FR poll would reveal about whether abortion in all cases should be banned?

Too hot to touch?

[ElkGroveDan]

"Really, she said, "what it amounts to is that the final arbiter of this issue is your own conscience."

Lucy sounds more like a Unitarian Universalist. Someone she needs to tell her she's in the wrong church.

[EBUCK]

They shoudl kick him out...what's that called? excommunicate?

Kick him right out the door and instruct their flock to never again support him in any way.

[ElkGroveDan]

"I've been a practicing Catholic for a very long time, and I was raised to believe in the separation between church and state."

Well then Gray, make it a full separation. Quit wearing your so-called Cahtolicism on your sleeve in public. If you are going to tell the world you are a Catholic, then the Catholic church has the right to remind you what that means.

[Gophack]

Why would it be too hot to touch? We all believe in free speech here. We can debate without being "mean-spirited" about it (dare I say that word!)

[Gophack]

I don't know if she even said she was Catholic. If she is, she is definitely an ill-informed Catholic. What else is new?

[Gophack]

Excommunication takes time and patience, and the Bishop needs to attempt to instruct the wayward sheep in the error of his ways. It can't and shouldn't be done over night, and there is an appeal process as well.

If the wayward Catholic does not repent of his sin, and the sin is an excommunicatable offense, then there is a process to go through (of which I don't have the details). I'm glad there is a rigorous process, and I also think that this is being explored.

[madprof98]

After Maher made his move, she went to then-Bishop Francis Quinn in Sacramento, who welcomed her by saying: "No priest in this diocese will ever refuse to give you communion."

After Maher's death, Killea said she "squared things away" with the new bishop and attends her church to this day. "Really, she said, "what it amounts to is that the final arbiter of this issue is your own conscience."

Living in the Bay Area for a while, I had the impression that the term "post-Christian" fits California better than anyplace else in this country. It's true that there were still a lot of Catholic churches around, but most of them seemed like the closed facility in SOMA (I think it was once St. Joseph's parish) that serves an ironic backdrop to the orgiastic Folsom Street Fair. It sounds as if Archbishop Quinn did a lot to replace Catholic discipline with what passes in California for "conscience."

[victim soul]

Ditto: "The good liberals are just upset that the Catholic/abortion gravy train is drawing to a close.



I, for one, hope that Davis and the rest of his ilk are excommunicated. It's about time Catholics put a stop to this."

[victim soul]

Really, she said, "what it amounts to is that the final arbiter of this issue is your own conscience."

She just left out one VITAL word -- the final arbiter of this issue is your INFORMED conscience.... based on natural law, Church Teaching, and The Magisterium.