Catholic Leaders Respond to Congressional Catholic Democrats' "Statement of Principles" -- Part One of Three

TN&V regulars may remember the March 2 edition in which we talked about the latest rhetorical rigamorale employed by Congressional Democrats trying yet again to extract themselves from the corner into which their party's unwavering support of abortion on demand has painted them. (See www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/March06/nv030206.html)

In their "Statement of Principles," 55 congressional Democrats, most of whom are pro-abortion, argued (a) that it's okay for Catholics and their church to agree to disagree on abortion, and (b) we're good on lots of other issues of importance to the Catholic Church.

But writing on the Our Sunday Visitor Web page Gerry Korson hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "That statement, released Feb. 28 on the website of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), was widely seen as a thinly veiled defense of Catholic legislators who support laws that protect or expand legal abortion." In other words, these Catholic congressional Democrats were advising the church leadership that abortion is important, but let's not go crazy.

To no one's surprise, last Friday three eminent church officials responded.

I would characterized the "Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life," signed by Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities; Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., chairman of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops; and Catholic Politicians; and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Domestic Policy, as a gentle boxing of the ears. The Religious News Service suggested in its lead paragraph that, "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.'"

Keying off of the congressional Democrats' insistence on "the primacy of conscience," the three church leaders wrote that conscience "must be consistent with fundamental moral principles," including the church's longstanding opposition to abortion. Specifically, they said, "As members of the church, all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the church."

In the course of their 682-word-long document, the three leaders characterized abortion as "a grave violation of the most fundamental human right -- the right to life." (The full statement can be read in Part Two.)

To this, I would add just two quick, but hopefully useful thoughts.

First, Korson was absolutely correct when he wrote, "The exchange of statements is in part a sequel to the very public debates that took place across the country during the national election of 2004 over the role of faith and conscience in arriving at political positions. The debate was sparked in part by the nomination of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a Catholic who supports legal abortion, as the Democratic nominee for president."

This has held huge implications, as pro-abortion Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi explained in March 5. Citing the work of three Democrat pollster/operatives, she observed that while Bill Clinton carried the White Catholic vote by seven points, Al Gore lost the same constituency by seven points, and Kerry by a whopping 13 points-- "a 20 point swing, to the advantage of the GOP." (I don't want to get sidetracked, so I will just note that Clinton's superior standing among Catholics was not because he was one iota less pro-abortion than Gore and Kerry but because he was a far superior politician.)

Second, a long time ago, Catholics were so culturally attuned to supporting Democrats that the party did not feel the need to seriously address its support of unconditional abortion on demand. Their rhetorical assurances were precautionary, like preventive flossing.

But Catholics and millions of others have since caught on. As we can glean from Vennochi's explanation, the price exacted of Democrats for supporting abortion has moved beyond a toothache. Electorally speaking, it threatens the survival of the entire Democratic Party.

Democrats want to have their cake (support for abortion on demand) and to eat it too (win over the votes of Catholics and others who would be predisposed to voting Democratic if they were convinced that the party is not a ventriloquist's dummy for the Abortion Establishment).

How long before it dawns on pro-abortion Democrats that educated voters are not going to be fooled by rhetorical window dressing?

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at dandrusko@nrlc.org.