House Democrats' "Statement of Principles"

[KnightofChrist]

[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]

[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]

[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]

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.”