Sojourner Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 As I noted in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=48491"]an earlier thread,[/url] the House Catholic Democrats have released a "statement of principles." Here's the full text (which wasn't available until Tuesday, I think): [quote]Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose. We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need. We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility. In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues. As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties. As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours. Rosa L. DeLauro David R. Obey Wm. Lacy Clay Hilda L. Solis James R. Langevin Bart Stupak Anna Eshoo Bill Pascrell Betty McCollum Gene Taylor Raul M. Grijalva Carolyn McCarthy John B. Larson Ed Pastor Joe Baca William Delahunt Tim Ryan Silvestre Reyes Mike Thompson Linda T. Sanchez Charles A. Gonzalez Xavier Becerra Diane Watson Michael H. Michaud Nydia Velazquez Jim Marshall Frank Pallone John T. Salazar James P. McGovern George Miller Tim Holden James L. Oberstar Dale E. Kildee Patrick J. Kennedy Cynthia McKinney James P. Moran Michael Capuano Richard E. Neal Mike Doyle Peter A. DeFazio Maurice Hinchey Dennis A. Cardoza Joseph Crowley Jim Costa Lucille Roybal-Allard Loretta Sanchez Robert Brady Marty Meehan Grace Napolitano Luis V. Gutierrez Jose Serrano Stephen Lynch Edward J. Markey Nancy Pelosi Lane Evans [/quote]
MagiDragon Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 if it weren't for that "primacy of conscience" bit, they'd actually have to start acting like they were Catholics according to that spiel too.
Era Might Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Why do I get the feeling that this is part of a concerted Democratic effort to rebuild the party's image so that they don't get trounced by the religion and morality vote in '08?
MagiDragon Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 9 2006, 11:25 AM']Why do I get the feeling that this is part of a concerted Democratic effort to rebuild the party's image so that they don't get trounced by the religion and morality vote in '08? [right][snapback]907281[/snapback][/right] [/quote] don't be silly, of *COURSE* it is! it's not like they'll actually clean up their act, but they can at least give it some good lip service.
Sojourner Posted March 9, 2006 Author Posted March 9, 2006 Both pro-life and pro-choice Democrats signed this. In other words, there are avowedly pro-life Democrats in Congress.
Era Might Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I still think the statement is mealy-mouthed. [quote]In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience.[/quote] Translation: Democrats are still gonna dissent. But we'll couch it in fancy "primacy of conscience" language.
Socrates Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote]Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose. We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need. We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility. In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues. As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties. As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours. [/quote] This is nothing but typical politician doublespeak. It looks to be like nothing other than a bunch of liberal Democrats trying to regain "religious" votes by explaining how they are "good Catholics" in spite of their public support for abortion. This is simply a variation on the old "I'm personally opposed, but . . ." line. The key line is the following: "In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance [b]but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas[/b]." These politicians are acknowledging here that their positions in "some areas" (probably abortion and similar moral issues) are opposed to those of the Church. They justify their unfaithfulness to the Church with the BS line of "primacy of conscience" (i.e. "I'll do what I want to do, rather than what the Church says.") But, hey, it's all good because, after all, they support "helping the poor" (in the guise of the increase of the welfare state), and in throwing more money at public education, and other lobbies beloved of liberals. It seems that these politicians are saying essentially, "we support the Church's teachings so long as they do not oppose the Democratic Party platform." However, if these pols were truly interested in winning over devout Catholic voters, acting according to Catholic principles, and in "protecting the most vulnerable among us," they would take a firm stand against abortion. These Dem Congessmen are showing themselves to be politicians first and foremost, and Catholics last. This "Statement of Principles" is anything but. (And some wonder why some of us don't get all over the Democrats! )
dspen2005 Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 is this deja vu... wasn't there a supposed statement of 'principles' (termed used lightly here) when Kerry was running for prez? is this a rehash of those same bogus ideas?
Socrates Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 9 2006, 11:51 AM']Both pro-life and pro-choice Democrats signed this. In other words, there are avowedly pro-life Democrats in Congress. [right][snapback]907300[/snapback][/right] [/quote] How many of the congressmen signing this "statement" have voted pro-life? I'd like to research this. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them are pro-abortion. And the very fact that "pro-choice" politicians signed this bill shows that this "statement of principles" is rather meaningless with regards to actual principle! (It's basically, "We'll follow Church teaching unless we don't want to.") What is the point of re-posting this statement? I don't see anything added in it that would change its essential message.
Sojourner Posted March 10, 2006 Author Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 9 2006, 07:55 PM']How many of the congressmen signing this "statement" have voted pro-life? I'd like to research this. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them are pro-abortion. And the very fact that "pro-choice" politicians signed this bill shows that this "statement of principles" is rather meaningless with regards to actual principle! (It's basically, "We'll follow Church teaching unless we don't want to.") What is the point of re-posting this statement? I don't see anything added in it that would change its essential message. [right][snapback]907596[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Please do research this. I reposted because I thought it only polite, since I'd posted the partial statement in the past. Plus, it's funny to see how just the mere mention of the word "Democrat" puts your knickers in a twist.
Sojourner Posted March 10, 2006 Author Posted March 10, 2006 Socrates, It's possible that I read more into your intial post than you intended. I interpreted it as an attack, and responded as such. I apologize for my rudeness.
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 I guess their line of reasoning is that the best way to help out poor people is to limit the number of poor people. I also don't buy into their social agenda. There is no love in giving someone a welfare check. People who willingly and lovingly help the poor out do far more good for the poor than politicians who want to throw money at them.
Socrates Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 I researched each of the congressmen who signed this statement.. The information was from [url="http://www.issues2000.org"]www.issues2000.org[/url], which tells how all of the politicians voted on various issues. It is easy to look up any of these voting records there. [b]32 of the 51 "Catholic Democrat" signers of the "statement" voted 100% pro-abortion on all votes pertaining to the issue. Only six voted 100% pro-life.[/b] (A 100% rating by NARAL - National Abortion Rights Action League - means the politician is is 100% pro-abortion. A 0% rating means he has voted 100% pro-life.) Hows that for "principle"?? DeLauro scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record. DeLauro is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Clay scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record. Langevin scores 10% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (supports allowing fetal stem-cell research) Eshoo scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Eshoo is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC McCollum scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record McCollum is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Grijalva scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Larson scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Baca scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Ryan scores 10% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (supports allowing fetal stem-cell research) Thompson scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Gonzalez scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Watson scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Watson is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Velazquez scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Velazquez is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Pallone scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record McGovern scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Holden scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (Pro-life!) Kildee scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (Pro-life!) McKinney is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC (100% Pro-abort voting record) McKinney adopted the Women's Caucus policy agenda which supported funding contraception and UN family planning Capuano scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Doyle scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (Pro-life!) Hinchey scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Crowley scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Roybal-Allard scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Roybal-Allard is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Roybal-Allard adopted the Women's Caucus policy agenda which supported funding contraception and UN family planning Brady scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Napolitano scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Napolitano is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Serrano scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Markey scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Evans scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Obey scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Solis scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Solis is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Stupak scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (Pro-life!) Pascrell scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Taylor scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (Pro-life!) McCarthy scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record McCarthy is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Pastor scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Delahunt scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Reyes scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Sanchez scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Becerra scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Michaud scores 10% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (would allow fetal stem-cell research) Marshall scores 10% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Salazar only voted on 2 issues (voted to allow fetal stem-cell research) Miller scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Oberstar scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record (Pro-life!) Kennedy scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Moran scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Neal scores 30% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Defazio scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Cardoza scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Costa only voted on 2 issues (voted to allow fetal stem cell research) Sanchez scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Sanchez is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC Meehan scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Gutierrez scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Lynch scores 10% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record Pelosi scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record adopted the Women's Caucus policy agenda which supported funding contraception and UN family planning A pro-life article on this statement here: [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030202.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030202.html[/url]
Socrates Posted March 12, 2006 Posted March 12, 2006 For those who don't have time to research on the site, each of those congressmen with 100% "pro-choice" ratings by NARAL voted in the following fashion: Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. Voted NO on banning human cloning, including medical research. Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad (for programs that include or support abortion). Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. As you can see, these "Catholic" Democrats are oppposed to any restrictions whatever on abortion, and are in favor of federal promotion and funding of abortion with your tax dollars! (and btw, kids, the pro-life bills they voted against were proposed by [i]Republican[/i] congressmen.) Then they hypocritically try to win over the Catholic vote by signing a statement saying that they're good Catholics who don't like abortion! Don't be fooled by their nonsense! The Democrats are anything but a pro-life party!
KnightofChrist Posted March 12, 2006 Posted March 12, 2006 [quote]2-March-2006 -- Catholic News Agency DEMOCRATS STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES SEEN AS A "SHAM" AND "BUNDLE OF CONTRADICTIONS" BY CATHOLIC LEADERS Washington DC, Mar. 02, 2006 ( CNA ) - The Democrats’ “Statement of Principles”, signed by 55 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, is “a sham” and nothing more than a “statement of politics,” said Catholic League president William Donohue. A majority of Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House led by Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) released yesterday a statement of principles, signed by 55 House Democrats, the statement documents how their faith influences them as lawmakers, and important issues such as social justice and the right to life. The statement underlines the fact that "In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas." According to Donohue, the statement was issued to try to convince the public, and especially Catholics, that one can be a good Catholic and differ with the Catholic Church on abortion. “They agree with the Church about the ‘undesirability of abortion,’ adding that ‘we do not celebrate its practice.’ What gives them pause is not explained, but one thing is certain: there is not a word in the statement that commits these Catholics to work towards a change in the Democratic Party’s Platform on abortion,” said Donohue. The statement does not oppose partial-birth abortion. “The statement is driven by fear,” Donohue said. “The fear is the Abortion Albatross that is literally strangling them from getting their message out.” “Perhaps the most convincing evidence that this statement is a sham is the fact that Rep. Rosa DeLauro is the point person for this effort,” said Donohue. DeLauro served as the executive director of the pro-abortion EMILY’s List. “With her at the helm, the ‘Statement of Principle’ is nothing more than a ‘Statement of Politics.’” Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life reacted equally to the statement, depicting as a a big mistake" and "a bundle of contradictions" introduced into the public debate on faith and public service. "This statement tries to soften the contradiction between creating a just society and tolerating legal abortion. The voting records of these legislators are available to anyone who wants to look them up. To fail to protect the unborn, and then to say that you are 'committed to . . . protecting the most vulnerable among us' is a blatant contradiction," followed Father Pavone. Priests for Life will release a statement of its own this month, addressing these concerns in more detail and bringing them to the attention of each of the signers of the "Statement of Principles. Click here to share this news story with a friend. [/quote] [quote]Catholic Democrats Scolded on Abortion Religious News Service Saturday, March 11, 2006; Page A07 Top U.S. Roman Catholic leaders told Democratic lawmakers yesterday that there is no wiggle room in church teaching on abortion and that they are duty-bound to work against "the destruction of unborn human life." The statement by three top leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a response to 55 Catholic Democrats in the House who issued a public statement Feb. 28 asking for room to disagree on abortion. The bishops, in turn, said they were willing to work together on issues affecting the "poor and vulnerable" but would not budge on church teaching that says abortion is gravely immoral. "While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions . . . Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring an end to the destruction of unborn human life," the bishops said. The three bishops who signed the statement were Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, head of the bishops' Pro-Life Activities Committee; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, who heads a task force on Catholic politicians; and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, chairman of the bishops' Domestic Policy Committee. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), who spearheaded the letter on Capitol Hill, said in a statement that she appreciated the bishops' response but did not address the bishops' rejection of Catholic lawmakers' request to respectfully disagree with the church on abortion.[/quote]
Lounge Daddy Posted March 12, 2006 Posted March 12, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 9 2006, 01:25 PM']Why do I get the feeling that this is part of a concerted Democratic effort to rebuild the party's image so that they don't get trounced by the religion and morality vote in '08? [right][snapback]907281[/snapback][/right] [/quote] hmmm... other than the fact that they are POLITICIANS ... why would you ever be suspicious of them ???? :
MagiDragon Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Mar 12 2006, 12:11 AM']hmmm... other than the fact that they are POLITICIANS ... why would you ever be suspicious of them ???? : [right][snapback]909320[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well . . . they're demagogues. (Or was that Democrats? Aren't they the same thing? I always forget the distinctions between the two . . . )
Socrates Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Good article on this subject here: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6271"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6271[/url] Analyst says Catholic democrats ‘can’t have it both ways’ Washington DC, Mar. 17, 2006 (CNA) - In light of the recently released, and much debated “Statement of Principles”, signed by a number of U.S. Catholic democratic party leaders, Catholic analyst and papal biographer George Weigel is charging that although many of the politician’s words oppose abortion, their actions don‘t back it up. In his most recent column, Weigel opines that many of the Catholic democrats who signed the February 28th statement resemble a group of politicians who, in 1964 voiced their agreement with Catholic bishops concerning civil rights, but then turned around and voted against the Civil Rights Act, as soon as it reached the floor of the House of Representatives. Some 80% of Catholics who signed that statement supporting the position of the U.S. Bishops--who were for the 1964 Act--then voted it down and supported segregation. Weigel said that “these were politicians trying to have it both ways,” and that, they “took neither the teaching of the Church nor the logic of justice seriously.” “I think”, he then went on to say, “that's what ought to be said about the latest attempt to finesse the abortion issue, which came in the form of a statement signed by 55 House Democrats,” all of whom, were Catholics. He cited the February statement, sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), in which signatories pledge to "promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children's health care and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility." The rub, he quickly pointed out, is that thirty-three of statement’s 55, including Rep. DeLauro, “voted to support the legality of partial-birth abortion. Forty-one of the signatories (again including Rep. DeLauro) voted to make abortion legal in Defense Department clinics and hospitals abroad. Thirty-seven of the signatories (including --- you guessed it --- Rep. DeLauro) voted against efforts to constrain the courts from compelling hospitals and doctors to perform abortions.” Weigel asked: “How do any of these votes square with the signatories' statement that they ‘agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion --- we do not celebrate its practice‘?” “This”, he chided, “is the same old same old --- ‘I'm personally opposed, but…’ --- tarted up in new vesture.” “One cannot speak credibly about the ‘undesirability of abortion’”, he further pointed out, “and then vote to protect and expand the abortion license. One cannot credibly claim to believe what the Catholic Church believes ‘about the value of human life’ and then ignore the central question posed by Roe v. Wade: is the willful taking of innocent human life compatible with a free and virtuous society?” He said that “One cannot appeal to the ‘primacy of conscience’ to defend the unconscionable --- any more than one could make that appeal in denying full legal and political rights to Americans of African descent.” Addressing one of the most volatile questions in the U.S. Church today, he said that “It's the bishops' prerogative responsibility to decide what is to be done, within the Church's discipline, about Catholic legislators whose votes support the willful taking of innocent human lives.” “That's a matter internal to the Church's life,” he wrote, “to be addressed by the Church's pastoral authorities.”
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now