The Lesson Of Louisiana

[M.SIGGA]

This is a really good debate topic article. It leans to the Right, and it is very well argued and supported. The source is very creditable too. What do you all think? It's common knowledge that I have somewhat of a bleeding heart and this is my poor little Catholic state, so I'm not going to comment right away.

The Lesson of Louisiana

by Deacon Keith Fournier

Catholic Way

The Lesson of Louisiana

Deacon Keith A Fournier

© Third Millennium, LLC

Well, the votes are counted and the unfaithful Catholic beat the faithful Catholic in Louisiana. At least that is one way of viewing what happened.

And both major political parties need to pay attention.

Hidden in the close race is the political story of the future and the determining force in the 2004 presidential campaign, Catholic Americans awakening to the obligations of their citizenship and the obligations of their baptism. Catholic Americans who are beginning to inform their political participation by that faith.

You see, you simply cannot “fit” faithful Catholics in the prevailing categories of “left” or “right”, “liberal” or “conservative.”

On the predominant human and civil rights issue of our age -- the inherent dignity of every human life - no matter what the age or stage of that life, from conception to natural death and all in between -- the current ruling class of the party calling itself “Democrat” has left behind those of us who understand the infallible teaching of our church on life, (which is the same the truth revealed by the natural law), in the dust. One simply cannot be both a faithful Catholic and what is euphemistically now called “pro-choice”-period.

The bottom line on the Louisiana race was that the victorious Democrat is unfaithful to her baptism in her approach to abortion while the losing Republican candidate was faithful. You see they were both professing Catholics. That is why, in the eleventh hour, the race got so close. Catholics came out of the woodwork, both in Louisiana and nationally, shook of their political lethargy and began to mobilize.

Perhaps if these faithful Catholics had begun sooner the results would have been different. This race was not about which candidate was Democrat or Republican. Neither will the presidential race of 2004 be such a simple exercise.

I, like many of my fellow Catholic Americans, grew up equating being Catholic with being a Democrat because -- at least so I thought --Democrats cared more about the poor, the working class, the marginalized and those with no voice. The current ruling elite of the Democratic party has proven just how wrong that stereotype probably always was…but now definitely is. The current Democrat party has come to embrace a notion of “freedom” as a power over others and “choice” as a right to do whatever one wants.

The absolute failure to hear the cry of the child in the womb is simply one more example of the unbridled hypocrisy of the current leadership of the party that claims to care more about the poor. Medical science has confirmed what our conscience has always known, that child in the womb is one of us.

His or her voice cannot be heard because it is muffled in the once hallowed home of the womb and disregarded by political opportunists. Once the first safe home of every human person, too many wombs have now become hostile environments that can be invaded, at any time and for any reason, and reduced to chambers of horror for thousands of smaller persons, children, who have an inalienable right to be born.

However, that other party called “Republican” has all too often earned the stereotype of its opponents that it cares about children only when they are in the womb and that once outside, it proposes a public policy of “every person for themselves.” This could become the case if a “survival of the fittest” approach to the market economy becomes the most important priority of the leadership of the Republican party and its leadership.

The Republican talk of a “compassionate” conservatism must be confirmed with a reaffirmation of our obligations in human solidarity- we simply are our brother’s keeper- and a public policy that acknowledges our special responsibility for the poor in our midst. Though “big government” solutions have arguably not worked all that well in the delivery of charity, they must now be replaced with a new approach to empowering the mediating associations to deliver that charity and not with a “libertarianism” that cares little about our social obligation.

Also, the dynamism of the market economy must be infused with the values that make us truly free. We must build a moral market economy and affirm the truth that markets were made for man (and woman) and not man for the market. That will best be done through expanding participation in the market economy to all who yearn to be truly free.

Informed, faithful and engaged Catholic citizens are beginning to see the connection between the “social teaching” of their Church (which is true for all persons and not just those “who believe”) and their politics. They are gathering around what I call four pillars of political and social participation; the dignity of life, the primacy of family, authentic human freedom and solidarity with the poor. They are not first Democrats or Republicans.

Though the movement simplistically called the “religious right” tried to include them in their movements at the latter end of the twentieth century, they were never at home there. Those Catholics who tried to fit in to the culture of the “religious right” often learned they had about as much of a home therein as their immigrant ancestors did in some of the original colonies.

However, they are less at home in what is left of the “left.” It left them behind when it ceased speaking of a “living” or “family” wage and catered more to the elites in the current Hollywood establishment and the crowd who defines “choice” as unimpeded abortion along with the bizarre collection of “liberals” that have co-opted a once decent label and now populate and control much of the Democratic party.

The lesson of Louisiana is that Catholic Americans - I mean those Catholics who both understand their faith and actually live it outside of Mass; those who do not buy the schizophrenic “double speak” of the former Governor of New York or his ilk who tell them that they can hold diametrically opposed positions on the dignity of life at the same time,- real Catholic Americans are gathering together to act politically and the outcome of 2004 election may very well be determined by them.

That is the lesson of Louisiana. To the leadership of both political parties, pay attention!

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

Rev. Mr. Keith A Fournier, the founder and president of "Common Good", is a Catholic Deacon. Attorney Fournier is a constitutional lawyer and the founder of “Lentz, Stepanovich and Fournier, P.L.C.” in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Long active in political participation, Fournier is also pro-life and pro-family lobbyist. He was the first Executive Director of the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). He served as an advisor to the presidential campaign of Steve Forbes. Fournier holds a Bachelors degree (B.A.) from Franciscan University of Steubenville in Philosophy and Theology, a Masters Degree (M.T.S.) in Sacred Theology from the John Paul II Pontifical Institute of the Lateran University, a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of Pittsburgh and an Honorary Doctor of Laws (L.L.D.) from St. Thomas University. Fournier is the author of seven books on issues concerning life, faith, evangelization, ecumenism, family, political participation, public policy and cultural issues. He serves with Fr. Frank Pavone in “Deacons in service of Life”, the diaconal outreach of “Priests for Life”. He is a features editor for Catholic Online and the Co-Director of “Your Catholic Voice”

[Seatbelt Blue]

Friend, I have felt similar to this for a while. I think only another Catholic can understand it when one says "I'm not republican or democrat; I'm Catholic." I often wonder if we need our own party which will stand for Catholic principles.

[BLAZEr]

M.Sigga, I thought that both candidates called themselves pro-life. I know Bobby Jindal (through mutual friends) and I would have supported him because of his clear Catholic vision, but I thought that the other candidate (whose name I can't remember) was also pro-life.

Can you explain what Deacon Fournier is referring to? Also, can you tell us why you, who lean left, voted for Bobby Jindal?

[foundsheep]

Friend, I have felt similar to this for a while. I think only another Catholic can understand it when one says "I'm not republican or democrat; I'm Catholic." I often wonder if we need our own party which will stand for Catholic principles.

A catholic party sounds great. Kind of like the independents. I was really thinking about this one,because here in that so-called governor recall race(california) almost all the candidates were supposed "catholics". But all wher pro choice. Now the only anti-abortion guy was not catholic. What does that make us look like.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Friend, I have felt similar to this for a while. I think only another Catholic can understand it when one says "I'm not republican or democrat; I'm Catholic." I often wonder if we need our own party which will stand for Catholic principles.

That's a nice idea and I would be very supportive of it, but, unfortunately, in our current system of government, we only have two parties that can win. I think it is very nice to vote third party, but if you lose the election, what's the point? There were millions of people who supported Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in the last presidential election. Both people failed to carry even five percent of the vote though and consequently, neither sectionof society is represented. George W. Bush didn't represent every thing I stood for. However, I voted for him because of the two candidates who had a reasonable chance to win, he was the one I agreed with the most and he was also the most pro-life. I mean, think if we had President Al Gore. We never would have gotten PBA banned, we would have unlimited public funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the Mexico City policy never would have been rescinded which would have funneled more tax dollars into supporting abortion, we would not have any abstinence education programs, we might not have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, members of the military could still procure an abortion at the tax payers' expense. There are a couple of other things as well. Gore isn't opposed to human cloning. Bush is. President Bush, though FAR from perfect, is certainly better than the alternative, which is what we would have gotten if Catholics (and Christians in general) had all supported third-party candidates.

[vianney]

Pipe Down Pat or Ill boot ya......ha ha jk buddy I love ya bro!

[geetarplayer]

That's a nice idea and I would be very supportive of it, but, unfortunately, in our current system of government, we only have two parties that can win.

Plus, the extremely outspoken atheist politicians would jump all over it and say how it's "unconstitutional" because it goes against the separation of Church and State.

-Mark

Edited December 10, 2003 by geetarplayer

[M.SIGGA]

M.Sigga, I thought that both candidates called themselves pro-life.  I know Bobby Jindal (through mutual friends) and I would have supported him because of his clear Catholic vision, but I thought that the other candidate (whose name I can't remember) was also pro-life.

Can you explain what Deacon Fournier is referring to?  Also, can you tell us why you, who lean left, voted for Bobby Jindal?

Lol. I don't think I lean Left, I'm just a little bit dissatified with some aspects of the Right right now. I'm a registered Dem. because of my district and I'm not bound by the 2 part system and I vote for what I think is right. A lot of Catholic clergy in Louisiana, including the two former archbishops, believe Senator Mary Landrieu is the devil in disguise. Since she supported Dem. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, the overwhelmingly Republican supporting clergy now associate Blanco with Landrieu the Devil. But they are both pro-life Catholics so Right to Life didn't matter in this election.

I voted for Rep. Jindal because he was most likely going to bring business to my poor and failing state. We are 49 out of 50 in everything in the U.S. and his platform looked to be the most promising. He would have won the election if he had not covered up the fact that he took 65,000 elderly people off medicaid, most of whom ended up dying soon after - this came out 3 days before the election. I was so pissed off because of this that I almost didn't vote at all.

[Dave]

A lot of Catholic clergy in Louisiana, including the two former archbishops, believe Senator Mary Landrieu is the devil in disguise. Since she supported Dem. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, the overwhelmingly Republican supporting clergy now associate Blanco with Landrieu the Devil. But they are both pro-life Catholics so Right to Life didn't matter in this election.

Mary Landrieu pro-life? I wish! Her pro-abortion voting is why bishops view her as "the devil in disguise."

[PedroX]

The part of about Catholics and politics that really gets my goat, is in the few instances when Bishops speak up to Politicians who call themselves Catholic, and vote for death the politicians all start screaming "I can't take marching orders from Rome!". Telling a person their immortal soul is being jepordized is not a "marching order" its the truth!

That being said, when I converted I was surprised at how many Catholics were Republicans. I had always had this image of Boston and the Kennedys when I thought of Catholics and politics. Not that its neccessarily a bad thing, just surprising.

peace...

[Muschi]

Hello all:

I hail from California and had the "priviledge" to vote in our recent re-call election. Sadly, I voted for the non-Catholic pro-life candidate because not to do so would have seriously violated my conscience.

I am so angry over politicians who claim themselves to be Catholic and then do everything BUT vote and live according to the teachings of our Church.

Conspiracy to undermine the Church?.........maybe not, I know that sounds over-board, but nothing would surprise me anymore.

As for forming a Catholic party, I'd love it, but it would have to be called something else and I wouldn't limit it only to Catholics. I'd want the Baptists and the Pentecostals and all the born-agains in this party because of one thing: They, while not sharing our faith and having been antigonistic toward us in general, are very, VERY, staunch pro-lifers. That is a common cause worth uniting for.

Right now, I think we still outnumber the atheists but the margin is closing quickly I think.

By the way, I actually believe as early as ten years from now, we will see the emergence of a third party such as the "green" party which is very popular out here and gaining speed and ground. Have any of you outside of California heard of this party? - Muschi

[Petrus]

The green party is worse than the democrats

www.gp.org

Stuff like feminism, diversity, and ecological wisdom?

They must have brought together everything bad from the democrats into a perfectly left party.

[M.SIGGA]

Mary Landrieu pro-life?  I wish!  Her pro-abortion voting is why bishops view her as "the devil in disguise."

You mis-understood. Landrieu's candidate is Pro-life, not Landrieu - everyone knows she is pro-abortion and that's why Archbishop Hannan said during her first election that any Louisianian who voted for her would be putting their soul in grave danger, but the majority of Louisiana Catholics did anyway.

[God Conquers]

At least some of your politicians try to hide the fact that they support abortion. Our Prime Minister (who gets changed tomorrow) CRITICIZED President Bush for being pro-life, then said "I'm a Catholic and I support abortion, I don't see what's wrong with that."

It's been the Catholic prime ministers and politicians who have, more than anyone else, turned my country into one of the foremost promoters of the culture of death in the world. Yet, Catholics vote for'em in droves!

[JP2Iloveyou]

It's so sad that more is not said against this. I applaud bishops like Blaise Cupich who publicly and openly criticized Sen. Tom Daschle for his public support of abortion. Our leaders (bishops and priests) need to be more vocal about the damage it can do to a person's soul when they support someone they know to be pro-abortion just because that person may do more good for their pocket books.