Posted on 10/22/2008 6:06:52 AM PDT by NYer
Legal Protection for Unborn, Support for Mothers Both Needed, Say Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy
WASHINGTON—"Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies," Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said in an October 21 statement. The bishops urged Catholics to study the teaching of the Church, rather than rely on statements and materials from outside groups and individuals.
[Read it here in PDF] [Summary here.]
Okay, what are these outside groups and individuals saying?
Also wrong:
The first argument is one used by Democrats, the second argument is a straw man constructed by Democrats about those who refuse to vote for Barack Obama and other pro-choice politicians.
I fully agree with the bishops that the second error is to be rejected - will Democrat Catholics now fully agree that the first argument is in error? Are you listening, Nicholas Cafardi? Doug Kmiec? Catholics United? Lisa Sowle Cahill? Because these are the Catholics who have been pushing this argument. By stark contrast, I have not seen anyone seriously claim that the legislative solution is the only one to be pursued. (Okay folks, I'm waiting.)
The Catholic argument for voting Democrat (or, specifically, for a pro-choice politician) has boiled down to "get over Roe" and "pursue alternatives like funding health care". The bishops respond:
The bishops added that legalizing abortion had greatly increased annual abortions in the United States. "The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems."
Clarification 2: FOCA is on the horizon.
The American bishops are coming to terms with the reality of an Obama presidency, and a Democrat-controlled Senate and House that could pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which will in one fell swoop erase all the progress that has taken place against Roe since it was passed. Here is what they say:
By the same token, even the limited pro-life laws allowed by the Court since Roe have been shown to reduce abortions substantially, leading to a steady decline in the abortion rate since 1980. Bans on public funding, laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more. On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to “discriminate” against abortion in providing services to women.
This statement challenges the canard which holds that legislative actions have been ineffectual in driving down the incidence of abortion. Of course restrictions act to restrict abortions.
Who is getting slapped on the wrist more?
While this statement is a critique of some elements of the republican and democrat solution to the problem of abortion, I submit that it is more a critique of the democrat solution for these reasons:
Finally, and most importantly:
This statement is a therefore, I submit, confirmation of my thesis that Catholics in the republican party must strive to see that their principles are better translated into practice, but Catholics in the democratic party must seriously address the errors in principle which the democrats have claimed on the issue of unborn human life, while simultaneously addressing the mistaken practices of the party which do not adequately defend unborn human life.
To put it simply: for Republicans, being Catholic on the issue of abortion involves following through on their rhetoric. For Democrats, being Catholic on the issue of abortion involves reversing their rhetoric and changing course on a whole range of legislative proposals they have planned. c
IOW - they've read the writing on the wall.
Ping!
100 bucks says Obamanation outlaws the church if he is elected. Any takers?. He opposes anything that is of God. He is the Anti-Christ
The nuclear option, should be considered, or at least threatened, to pro-death American politicians and officeholders who are supposedly adherents to the Catholic faith. Now would be a good time to start.
http://www.catholicvote.com/
pass this video link along! It is wonderful.
Would that we could air it on national TV for at least 3 days before the election...
It seems that FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) which is Pelosi and Obamas top priority in a new administration s SO extreme as to take breath away
No Christian should be able to suppor that.
It eliminates the ability of anyone to object to or even offer alternatives to abortion (up to and forcing medical personnel to participate) and sets churches up to face civil rights violation charges if they even speak out
FOCA will essentially have that effect.
It outlaws conscience protections for both institutions and individual health care workers. The Catholic hospital system will be the first to go, followed by other Catholic social services organizations.
These, and other similar statements from the American Bishops are welcome indeed.
It is way past time that the Bishops grew a spine and realized that the “social justice” faction of The Church is nothing more than an ultra leftist bunch who would love to see life issues limited to only the death penalty.
I think American Bishop’s backs are against the wall now and they no longer have a choice about speaking out. “Moral Equivalence” is dead.
Ping. Good Morning!
Ping. Good Morning!
Thanks for the post. I am on my way to Mass and will study it in depth when I return.
Finally, it appears to be a strong life supporting statement!
It’s about time they grew a spine.
The church should have taken a definitive position on this 30 years ago.
He would plants the seeds of a new bloody civil war.
He has already done it
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
It looks to me like the start of an avalanche among the bishops this year. I have never seen so many bishops speak out so clearly and unequivocally, especially in October with an election approaching, when they have usually gone quiet for fear of risking the tax status of the Church or offending the Democrat politicians.
I think they are recognizing that this is a critical turning point. If Obama wins, it could block any further movement toward life for the foreseeable future. If he loses, we will continue to press forward toward a return to constitutional government.
Especially critical is the Supreme Court. And that goes not only for the right to life but for freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom to choose your path and succeed in life, freedom of speech, and a host of other freedoms that we take for granted.
An Obama win, with Pelosi and Reid sitting on a filibuster proof majority and a collapsing world economy, might cause irreversible damage.
So it’s speak now, or forever hold your peace.
It’s about time. Better late than never.
I have been thinking that we shall soon see some actual formal excommunications.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.