Today's News & Views
March 2, 2006
Another
Futile Effort At Diversion
As a non-sectarian organization, NRLC stays out of any
denomination's intra-mural debates except to the extent that
what's at issue directly affects our mission of helping to save
unborn babies and the medically dependent elderly. When this is
the case, a few observations are not only permissible but
obligatory.
It did not receive a ton of attention, but a couple of days ago
55 Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives released a
"Statement of Principles." While it is quite true that not every
signer was pro-abortion, 90% were.
The ringleader--or at least the public face for this
statement--is Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Ct.) The Catholic League for
Religious and Civil Rights argues that "perhaps the most
convincing evidence that this statement is a sham" is that Rep.
DeLauro "is the point person for this effort."
"There has never been an abortion she couldn't justify,
including the killing of an innocent child who is 80-percent
born,"
The Catholic League's statement goes on to say. "Indeed, she
previously served as the executive director of EMILY's List, the
richest pro-abortion organization in the country." [EMILY'S List
supports only pro-abortion female candidates.]
The Catholic League concluded, "So with her at the helm, the
'Statement of Principle' is nothing more than a 'Statement of
Politics.' Thus, the Abortion Albatross remains securely in
place."
Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, was also sharply
critical. "This statement tries to soften the contradiction
between creating a just society and tolerating legal abortion,"
Fr. Pavone said. "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."
I will likewise focus only on what the statement says--or
doesn't say--about abortion. First and foremost, while there is
who-can-disagree language about "reducing the number of unwanted
pregnancies," there is not a whisper in the entire document that
commits these Democrats to ending the regime of Roe v. Wade,
putting a stop to such ghastly abridgements of human rights as
partial-birth abortion, or changing (or even ameliorating) the
National Democrat Party's militant defense of abortion on
demand, for any reason or no reason.
Second, are we actually supposed to believe this "Statement of
Principles" has no context--that it just appeared out of
nowhere, like spontaneous combustion? Aren't we allowed to even
suspect that there might be a less noble motivation than "express[ing]
the signers' commitment to the dignity of life and their belief
that government has moral purpose"?
Please!
The "Statement of Principles" includes this pivotal section. It
follows references to abortion, the acknowledgement that these
legislators "accept the tension that comes with being in
disagreement with the Church in some areas," AND the declaration
of the "primacy of conscience."
Read it and ask yourself what it says, what it connotes, and
what it implies:
"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."
This is so vague and subject to so many different
interpretations, it's hard to draw hard-and-fast conclusions.
But if you had a chance to question them, I'd ask this.
You say we all can practice our faith--for policymakers, it can
even "inform our public duties." But are you also intimating
that if Catholic legislators vote to prohibit the taking of
unborn life, this would violate the separation of church of
state? Are you suggesting that would this be failing to
"preserve" the Constitution--and therefore threatening religious
freedom? Is the inference that voting pro-life would,
ironically, threaten Catholics' own freedom of religion?
If someone of another faith voted to save the unborn, would they
also be failing to preserve the Constitution? Is it possible to
oppose abortion for reasons that are not explicitly tied to
religion? Is it not possible for atheists to oppose abortion?
And what happens if what your faith teaches you-- that it's
wrong to treat fellow human beings as slaves, for
example--coincides with your vote to oppose slavery?
I ask these questions and offer these hypotheticals because over
and over and over again I have heard these offered as reasons
people of faith should stay away from the abortion issue.
In fact, of course, the thrust behind the "Statement of
Principles" is as obvious as the nose on your face (or the
outcome of recent elections): attempting to reduce the
importance of abortion--to make it just "one among many" issues,
of no more importance than any other.
DeLauro spilled the beans in an interview with Religious News
Service. "This is about the whole notion that the Catholic
purpose is not defined by one issue," she 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."
If you have questions or comments, please send them to Dave
Andrusko at
dandrusko@nrlc.org.
Invite a friend to Join Today's News
And Views!
Today's
News and Views ---
Send this page to a friend!