Catholics for Bush says:
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
The Other Catholic Issues
Kerry Catholics are not going to like this piece from
James K. Fitzpatrick. I do not see how Kerry Catholics can continue with their assertion that all issues are equal. Is it that thier ignorance is invinsible or is that they push this idea so as to convince others to support pro-abort candidates like Senator Kerry. I do not know the answer. I do know that I have
tried to inform my conscience and that it is telling me I cannot, cannot vote for Senator Kerry.Well, I no longer have to defend my position on my own. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has come to the rescue.
A letter that Ratzinger wrote in June to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has recently been made public. The letter makes clear the difference between the way a Catholic must respond to the pope’s pronouncements on abortion and the way we must respond to his positions on issues such as capital punishment and the war in Iraq. Here is the key: On the question of abortion, there is no possible way for a
Catholic politician to say that he is following the teachings of the Church, while at the same time
defending legal abortion. If you admit that you are
committed to keeping abortion legal, you are saying that you intend to do nothing to stop the killing of millions of unborn children.How can Kerry Catholics respond to that?
Easy, actually! Most CforBsh (Cfbs) ignore the issue by raising the death penalty and war. While other liberals are prepared to argue, validly about both war and the death penalty, I generally keep away from those issues when talking about abortion.
On the equality of the issues, the issue is not abortion v some other "life-issue", but the sliding scale of human dignity in its temporal progression.
My question I ask to "pro-lifers," so called, is this: at what point did my little girl become less important? Five minutes after she was born, ten? A week? Three months? 17 months? Five years? Ten? When?
When "pro-lifers" so called can answer that question, then they'll be talking. The same argument that applies on the partial birth abortion issues, about what the different is between full and partial birth applies. It is nothing short of hypocrsy to fight for a life up until the second it is born and then abandon it for a lifetime. The point of a life is to live and live like a human. If you fight for a life to live, but do not fight for it to then live with the dignity of a human being, then are you actually fighting for life? No.
The fact that the pro-life crowd transfers "custody" of the birthed child to the liberals, I might add, is a testament to the fact the it is not life they are fighting for but something else (I'm not sure what). (I think most pro-lifers fight for an abstract cause or to ease conscience.)
The equality or weighting of isses is not an abortion v capital punishment issue, but a pre v post birth issue-who is more important. Cfbs land predominantly and perhaps, solely on the side of the pre-born and want little do with the post born. How do they justify that trade off? At least, we on the liberal side are struggling to weigh both, considering it unacceptable to abandon a human life, a baby, before she's born or afterwards.
So, that's how we answer. Not all issues are equal, but the same life, before and after birth is equal. I ask then the Cfbs, how soon after the baby is born, does it become less important?
4 Comments:
I've been posting responses on the Catholics for Bush website for awhile now. The website rather heavily focuses on abortion, abortion, and more abortion. Occasionally, it throws in some other 'less-weighty' issues like how well our economy is doing, what a good envrironmental president we have, and yadda yadda yadda. I try to present links to government websites that tell us otherwise, but generally I don't get responses when I do that.
On the matter of abortion, I get the strong sense that the Catholics for Bush website cares intensely for fetus' that are in-womb only. They don't care much that embryos are thrown away at fertility clinics, or that contraceptive devices do occasionally abort embryos. I've tried to argue that just these two things destroy WAY more embryos than abortion doctors do, but they don't seem to 'weigh' those embryos as important as the ones that are comfy in the womb. I'm not sure if they see the hypocrisy in their untenable position. They just seem to keep repeat the mantra that Bush is WAY more pro-life than Kerry, but cannot explain all the less than pro-life policies that Bush institutes. They just don't seem to give a damn about anything Bush does, other than that he wants to protect in-womb embryos. I personally think they've got a very very strong womb fetish. I cannot explain it any other way.
By
Anonymous, at September 22, 2004 at 5:50 PM
Ono, you have accused Catholic Bush supporters of this alleged "abandonment" of life outside the womb before. And each time (as far as I can remember) it has been a generalized statement with no evidence or basis in fact. What evidence do you have that, we feel your little girl or or my 3-year old son or any child is less important? Your impression of us is based on the false perception created by the obsession of the American media (not us) with the abortion issue, and indeed matters of the Catholic Church and sexual morality in general.
Many of us have a view of limited government and thus reduced spending on social programs. Is that your basis for accusing us of abandoning children "for a lifetime"? Come on Ono. Catholics are free to disagree on what the state should do in regards to taxes, health care, etc. and they are permitted to argue that in some cases government assistance has been and can be detrimental. The principle of subsidiarity does have a place in Catholic social teachings. You may not like that, but you are mistaken to accuse those of us who apply it, as thinking life after birth is less important. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The principle of subsidiarity and its application brings me to another point. Do you know what I do for a living? What charities I give to? Where I volunteer? Probably not. Many of the Catholics for Bush I know work in hospitals, schools, and in fields where they are helping and caring for people "outside the womb". They give freely to organizations like Catholic Charities, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Catholic Medical Mission Board, etc. They volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers where they help the mothers and their children, before and after they are born. They volunteer with Special Olympics, in parish outreach programs, etc. You do not know us. The reason we treat the unborn like we do is precisely because we have respect for ALL life and see the dignity in all us, born and unborn.
You can try to misrepresent pro-lifers, but the truth is you support a candidate who not only supports abortion rights but wants to expand those rights. Oh, he has stated abortion should be "rare", but his votes in the Senate, his speech to NARAL last year, and his strong support from PP and NARAL contradict that statement and show that it is an campaign ploy to appease folks like you.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
By
David, at September 23, 2004 at 5:16 AM
I'm not misrepresenting pro-lifers. I am arguing with the general thrust of the movement and also with the evidence, that the energies of the pro-life movement are 96.83% on "pro-birth" or "anti-abortion" and pre-birth" but that energy and effort drops off to an incredible degree when that baby is born; "lip service," as I term it, notwithstanding.
I'm not necessarily arguing that Government must be the one to address the socio-economic issues, even though I don't see how else it would get addressed. I respect the fact that many conservatives believe that these things can be done privately, nonetheless, it is not being done privately, at least not to any significant and comprehensive degree. Private organizations may account for a percentage of varied assitances, but it can't even come close to what is needed out there. So then what? Is it okay to help 15% or 30% and leave the other 70%? No. That's why we argue that the Government can do it at a far more comprehensive rate and is not subject to the whims of the economy which affects private efforts.
That said, the commitment from the anti-abortion crowd for post-birth is just not there. If anti-abortion activists where cared about life itself, the energy has to carry over, but it simply doesn't.
BTW, why, from the view point of conservatives, should the government have a role in the legality of abortion question, but not in the providing services? It seems that on life-issues post-birth, conservatives want people's lives and dignity to depend on private generosity, but when it comes to the legality of abortion, they don't want to depend on the natural human love a mother has for her child to preserve it, they'd rather turn it over 100% to the government.
By
Ono, at September 23, 2004 at 11:19 AM
I ask you again Ono, what evidence do you have to support the claim that pro-lifers do little or nothing for children after they are born? You offer no evidence. You have this blog and the Catholics for Kerry Yahoo! group to expound. Why not do that?
I will admit Catholics can and should do more to help women and children who are in tough situations. But there already is a considerable effort by them.
There are more pro-life help-giving centers then there are pro-life education and poliltical action centers. There are more abortion alternative centers then there are abortion clinics. These centers provide free pregnancy tests, free counseling, free material and resources to pregnant women. As well, these centers provide free prenatal care, free clothing, baby clothes, furnishings and other help to needy women and children. Many pro-life doctors offer no-cost medical help and pro-life lawyers donate legal aid to help with adoptions. There are single mother support groups and childcare is offered for those women who need it. And there are thousands of pro-life families on adoption waiting lists. My younger brother and his wife adopted a child two years ago. What a blessing he is to them and they are to him. I myself was an adopted child, born of a single teenager who courageously carried me in her womb and then gave me up at birth. Through Catholic Charities' adoption services I was adopted by two loving, faithful, incredible parents. They already had two children and twin boys showed up 18 months after they brought me home. They taught me the Faith and provided all my physical wants and needs. I ask what more needed to be done in my case? No government funding or service was needed. Beyond the decision of my birth mother, which was likely influenced by the fact abortion was illegal in the state I was born in (Hmmmm), most of the "effort" came from my adopted family.
As for your question about the state's role in the legality of abortion and not in the services, I would say the state made the laws which made abortion legal and it will take the state to change that. As for the role of government in the services, I would argue President's Bush faith-based initiatives are a means to better get the state involved in an already considerable effort by private organizations. The need for the state to be more involved is welcome but not necessarily required as you seem to believe.
Thanks again for allowing me to respond.
By
David, at September 29, 2004 at 3:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home