View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by John Jakubczyk, Esq. |
March 3rd, 2006
"Catholic" Democrats in the House believe that if they claim they are good Catholics, they can vote for abortion.
For the record, I am a Catholic and at one time was a registered Democrat. These reflections are as someone who is committed to restoring protection to all innocent human life. As president of Arizona Right to life, I remind the reader that AZRTL is committed to restoring legal protection to the unborn child and as an organization AZRTL will support committed pro-life candidates of whatever party who seek to end the slaughter of the unborn. AZRTL has a long and distinguished history of supporting pro-lifer candidates for public office of both major parties and longs for the day when both major parties will only field candidates who hold anyone who supports killing children in the womb is unfit for public office. However any candidate or public official who holds that elective abortion – the deliberate killing of an innocent human being - should be legal or permissible by law – is not qualified or deserving to hold public office. AZRTL holds that every innocent human being has a right to life and that this right to life begins at the moment of conception. All law therefore should be designed to protect innocent human life.
Yesterday 55 “Catholic” Democrats issued a “Statement of Principles” claiming that they take seriously their commitment to live the Catholic faith. In essence the statement attempts to justify the voting behavior of these 55 “Catholic” Democrats, which include voting against any restrictions on abortion including partial birth abortion. Apparently these “Catholic” Democrats believe that if they claim they are good Catholics, they can vote to allow the continued slaughter of the unborn. Two of these Catholics are from districts in Arizona and have pro-abortion records. Their actions do not reflect a healthy respect for the dignity of the human person or the duty of all persons, not just Catholics, to respect human life.
I read the statement again. It is absolutely unbelievable. Hypocrisy is probably the best word to describe it. Somehow according to this statement, these elected officials are not obligated to take any action to protect innocent human life. Somehow it is within the “right of conscience” to vote against legislation to protect human life because of some perverse understanding of separation of church and state. Somehow if your party has endorsed the abomination called abortion, you as a Catholic legislator do not have an affirmative duty to work toward its reversal. Somehow, as politicians it is permissible to ignore the clear teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject and simply claim that the debate “often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.”
Since when is protecting innocent human life complicated?
Since when is following the Church’s teaching on the subject complicated?
Let us examine the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject by looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
As for the church’s teaching on conscience, here is the framework within which one operates.
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings . . . . 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
So let us return to the so-called “Statement of Principles.” Where in the statement is there any reference to the teaching of the church on this matter? Where is there any exhortation to the nation to protect the dignity and the sanctity of the human person? Where is there the condemnation of the courts for having declared the unborn child property and therefore disposable? How can government be exercising its moral duty when over one million lives are being killed every year by “legal” abortion?
How can these signers claim to working “to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” when they all vote against bills that would protect innocent human life?
How can these signers claim to working “to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” when none of them have signed on to sponsor a Human Life Amendment or even the Right to Life Act?
So one finds in the final analysis that this is just an effort to cloud the truth, to confuse the voters, to “spin” the record of votes against human life. This also reflects a fundamental fear by these politicians that their constituents are getting tired of their theatrics, that they are feeling real pressure to do something, but that they are stilled controlled by a party apparatus connected to extremists who support and are supported by the abortion industry. As long as the Democratic Party has a platform plank that endorses abortion on demand, any Catholic who is and wants to remain a Democrat has a serious moral obligation to remove that party plank. Any thing less reflects a lack of commitment to the cause of life.
Yesterday’s statement was so much hot air. If these Democrats are opposed to abortion, then they should act like it. They should call for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. They should join with Pro-life Republicans and pass laws recognizing the unborn child as a person in law. They should de-fund Planned Parenthood and any international aid effort that funds International Planned Parenthood. They should remove the pro-abortion plank from their own party platform and substitute a plank that affirms the dignity of every human being. They should publicly go on record and declare that they will not support for president any candidate who supports killing unborn children or opposes changing the law.
If they want to be considered Catholics, then act like it.
Otherwise, stop with the political hypocrisy.
jakeslaw@ionet.net
Visit their website at: http://www.azrtl.org/
Responses to "A Catholic Responds to “the Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives”"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Conservatives should refer to themselves as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-life". The fact is conservatives do believe in a woman's right to choose. The decision to have sex is a choice. The only case where it is not a choice is if the woman is raped. In those rare cases when a woman does become pregnant by rape, she should have the right to choose whether to carry that child to term. This is the one argument that a "pro-choice" liberal can't refute. They will avoid the reality of what choice means and demand that you stop forcing your puritan values upon them or to "stay out of their wombs". It seems to me that conservatives are the only people that DO stay out of their wombs.
Comment by Mistress Moon | March 3, 2006
The liberal left is never short of hypocricy. The party that says it is so outraged over possible civil rights and NSA surveillance is the party of Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, and Elian Gonzalez. The party of civil liberty is okay with sending tanks and armed swat teams to a law abiding citizen's home and kidnap or kill them. The party of "pro-choice" is fine with your choice as long as it is their choice. The party that defends a Tookie Williams offers no defense for the most defenseless among us…….children. Hypocricy…..that's the least of their sins.
Comment by Michael Holloway | March 3, 2006
I wonder if the Catholic Democrats wrote the same "Statement of Principles" supporting the right of farmers and plantation owners in the south to keep owning and trading slaves back in the 1800s. What about those poor owners’ convenience? Oh, wait, I forgot that none of those Catholic Democrats would have been voted into Congress since they were not Protestants.
Same thing now. Democrats in the 1850s based their position on the idea that slaves were not people, or lesser people. Democrats again base their position on abortion with the same thesis.
God help us if they come to power….
Comment by Ruslfish | March 3, 2006
Just a comment to Mistress, who I am sure is well intentioned and a strong supporter of the life of all children.
If I rape a woman, will you want to kill my already born two-year-old son too, or just the child I conceived forcibly in the womb of that woman?
It would be a horrible inconvenience and a painful reminder for the poor woman who went through the atrocity of rape, but that child did not do anything wrong, and should not be killed because of the evil sperm donor. As bad as the initial action was, we cannot compound the evil by killing the innocent child too.
In addition, if an immoral woman who had consensual sex wanted an abortion, all she would have to do is literally yell rape to get what she wanted. Tragically then, two people would suffer her decision to have sex, a dead baby and a persecuted/jailed innocent man.
Life is a life is a life, no matter the origin. A child of a rape has the equal right to live as a child of a husband and wife’s happy conception. To argue otherwise again means that the child’s life is worth less than the feelings and convenience of the mother.
Comment by Ruslfish | March 3, 2006
I'm firmly against abortion by choice, and I believe it should be allowed if the mother's life is at risk, but I struggle with what should be done with rape. As Ruslfish said, it's not the child's fault. Yet I sympathize with rape victims as well. I can only imagine having to relive the trauma every day for nine months, ya know? But ultimately, I also conclude that we should respect the sanctity of life above emotional well-being, hard as it may be.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 4, 2006
Here's a scenario for ya. Imagine rather than allow abortion, the government tokk the unwanted babies and raised the. (For the sake of the scenario, ignore how scary that would be.) So, when the war in Iraq rolls around, do you think the libs would be pissed if we sent these people whose parents didn't want them off to war and 2000 of them died? If so, why? They liberals sure act mad about those 2000, but I don't even think I believe them any more. Actually, your average lib walking down the street is probably upset about the war, but the leaders are only "angry" because it benefits them politically. They behave the same way with this port deal. For four years they said we couldn't even keep an eye on Arabs because they were Arabs. Now, when they view it as being politically beneficial, they say we shouldn't even do business with someone solely because they are Arabic. It's all about riding fences. I couldn't agree more with this article, but we all know it will fall on deaf ears. It's tough to criticize people with no convictions because they don't understand why they should be insulted.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 4, 2006
Soryy aboot tham thar typos. I must suck at typing.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 4, 2006
To Shane Atwood: You said, "It’s all about riding fences." Consider the following paragraph:
Pathological Politics
“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion - enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote, Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate affect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs. Understanding the politician is therefore extremely frustrating for those who value precise statements. But note that this problem is not the fault of the politician; it is rooted in the rational ignorance of voters, the distribution of conflicting sentiments among voters, and the nature of collective endeavor. What all this means is clear: Political communication is rarely conducive to rational or efficient allocation of scarce resources. This does not mean that the individual politicians are irrational in their choice of language and symbolic activities. Waving the flag and kissing babies are practiced because of their tactical value in an activity that is at once a rational game and a morality play; in that conjunction lies the endless fascination and frustration of politics.”
Beyond Politics, Mitchell & Simmons, Westview Press; p. 73
So, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Comment by G of Sedona | March 5, 2006
". . .we seek the Church’s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience."
“The failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters” (Living the Gospel of Life , n.23). – The United States Catholic Bishops, 1998.
Comment by G of Sedona | March 5, 2006
Personally, I think its kind of says it all of the American woman, the 'most' privileged and pampered group of people on this earth get the sole responsibility of tearing a poor defenseless baby human limb from limb to satisfy convenience and delicate pysches. Few other groups get that priviledge handed to them by our Godless idiots on the supreme court. I wonder how the average American pro baby mutilator woman will fare in the afterlife? Since the prototypical American woman is bent on opposing anything most men want, maybe men should start trying to force Abortions on women and instantly our pussy whipped legislators and Supreme jackasses in black would outlaw all abortion. It will take will-power men but start telling your wives, girlfriends to get abortions or else. It seems to work with everything else when it comes to American women
Comment by Dean | March 5, 2006
I, as a conservative and human being, wish abortion to end. I still disagree with the argument presented by Mr. Jakubczyk. As a Christian, and recovering Catholic, I do not want Rome dictating the votes of our reprsentives. I believe this treads on very shaky ground. We cannot plea for freedom of religion but expect votes to fall within religious guidelines. Mr. Jakubczyk undoubtedly has done great work for the lives of the unborn, I suggest reinforcing this work on the value of life, not Catholic doctrine.. The world doesn't need Catholism to defeat abortion. I respect the religious beliefs of all Catholics, but they should not define policy. I won't hold Harry Reid to his Mormon beliefs, Jesse Jackson Jr. to his Baptist beliefs, or Teddy Kennedy to his Catholic beliefs. I hold them to how they vote, what they say, and what they do. Abortion stands out as a easy hypocrisy, which most conservatives will easily side with Catholic Doctrine. How would most conservatives feel about the Catholic principles on divorce, the death penalty, tithing, or an array of other issues in which Catholics and conservatives differ?
Comment by Honker | March 6, 2006
To Honker: I am not a Catholic, but I do feel that you missed the point of Mr. Jacubczyk letter. He is speaking directly to the Catholic politicians who signed the Statement.
Comment by sue | March 6, 2006
To Sue, I understand the point. It still holds a persons votes hostage over religious beliefs. The Statement was meant as a catch 22, and can work as one if need be. This fact doesn't make it right. The premise of not wavering on ones religious beliefs when representing millions of other people to me is wrong. Unless those involved ran on the ballot of "I will vote as the Pope would have me vote," than the story carries no weight. I believe defeating abortion, which is the goal, doesn't need to follow a Catholic Doctrine to be successful. By linking the two, I believe the movement loses momentum. When pro- abortion Catholics are blasted by Pro-life Catholics, no ground is being gained. The debate needs to be brought to the forefront with technology and truth. Showing the pictures of infants at 2-3 months into term, or showing a partial birth abortion, or any abortion with today's technology would end the killing. Most Americans do notknow what really happens in these clinics, and if they did, they would demand for it to stop. I don't believe religion is trivial, but attempting to gain results via religion is futile.
Comment by Honker | March 7, 2006
To Hunker: I do love the position you take on fighting abortion, however I think you're wrong when you say most americans don't know what goes on in these clinics. But even if that were the case, what about all these politicians. I'm sure Dianne Feinstein knows exactly what goes on in those clinics. The truth is they don't care. They're hearts have become hardened, and ours would be too if it were not for the grace of God. I'm sorry, but "the right to life" is a religious issue. To try to fight it on any other grounds is futile. We must keep up the fight because God expects that of us, but remember that only He can change the heart of man.
By the way, if there are any atheist reading this who might say,"Wait a minute, I'm pro-life but I don't believe in God." then to you I say ,"Me thinks thou dost protest too much!"
Comment by sue | March 7, 2006
Sue:
Saint Thomas Aquinas based his Natural Law on logic. It is what we base many an edict in the Catholic Church. Life is precious in all its forms, and to take life is logically wrong, not only morally wrong or un-Christian. Therefore, a thoughtful atheist can also be pro-life and hold sand.
I think of an atheist as a theist anyway. They also must "believe" in the idea that there is no God. It would be analogous to a zero, the representation of no value, still being a number. Does that make sense?
Comment by Ruslfish | March 8, 2006
To Ruslfish: There is room for a lot of theology here, but I'll keep this short. There are two kinds of grace. Common and Saving. All the world benefits from God's common grace. It won't save the unbeliever, but it does explain why they may still do good things. You say that to take life is logically wrong, and you say it as though somehow God doesn't fit into that equation. Who do you think gave man logic? Who gives man LIFE. Yes this is a religious issue, and if we happen to get some unbelievers on board with us, thank God for his common grace.
Comment by sue | March 8, 2006
Any who may be confused on the concept of abortion when it comes to rape may be interested in a very personal account from such a woman who not only gave birth but happily raised the child on her own. I know it's just one account but sadly enough this blogger's story is the only one that jumps to mind as it's the only one I've personally ever come across where the mother gave birth and there's actually an end of the story to tell.
http://pjmax.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_pjmax_archive.html
Comment by Kenneth | March 13, 2006
Please forgive, I gave the wrong link. I should have checked it before posting.
http://pjmax.blogspot.com/2006/01/abortion-debunking-myths.html
Comment by Kenneth | March 13, 2006
To John,
A zygote, left alone, will become an individual just like you or me. Would some drops of blood from
a cut "left alone" do the same?
You say "Just because something has the potential to become a human doesn’t mean that it is"
Could you tell me "when" we become human?
Comment by Vic | March 15, 2006
Sue:
I hope you see this. I understand what you are saying, and I also believe that God created everything, including the way everything falls into logical and reasoned place. Is this intelligent design? Why not?
I am with you that logic was created by God. Even if athiests disagree. If they follow the trail of logic, they will realize there must be God. I did. :)
Comment by Ruslfish | March 20, 2006