Patrick J. Buchanan
July 7 2004
"I oppose abortion personally. ... I believe
life does begin at conception." So said John Kerry last week in Iowa.
Remarkable. If Kerry believes life begins at conception, he must concede
that each time he has voted to fund abortions, he has voted to fund the
killing of human beings. And voting to uphold Clinton's veto of the
partial-birth abortion ban, Kerry voted against sparing tiny human
beings from an excruciating form of execution.
How does John Kerry reconcile this?
"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it
on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," says Kerry.
But Kerry is not being asked to vote to force Jews or atheists to attend
church on Sunday or recite the Apostles' Creed. He is only being asked
to vote "no" to the spending of tax dollars to finance the destruction
of what he himself says is human life.
Kerry protests that he does not want to impose his religious beliefs on
nonbelievers. Yet, legislators have voted to outlaw prostitution, to
punish those who use and/or sell drugs, and to ban child pornography.
Each time they voted to criminalize such conduct, they sought to impose
their moral beliefs upon dissenters.
Civil-rights laws do the same thing. When John Kerry votes to outlaw
discrimination against blacks, women and gays, he votes to impose his
idea of what is right behavior on those who think they should be free
not to serve, not to rent to and not to hire people they don't want to
serve, rent to or hire.
But with abortion, we are not talking about black folks being insulted
by not being served at Denny's. If Kerry is right, we are talking about
killing.
And if Kerry is truly "personally opposed to abortion," why does he not
declare this strong personal belief from the podium at the feminist
rallies to which he is invited? Why does he not speak up and say: "While
I cannot stop abortion, you can. You should stop destroying human life."
That would be moral courage – and the end of Kerry in a Democratic Party
in which abortion is fast becoming a sacrament.
Yet, if the disconnect between Kerry's beliefs and actions is stark and
inexplicable, what are we to say of the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church?
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has set up, under Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick of Washington, a seven-member task force to study
what the sanction should be for Catholic politicians who vote to fund
abortions and vote against judges who believe the unborn have a right to
life.
But what is there to study, Your Eminence?
The Church has always taught that abortion is the killing of the
innocent and intrinsically evil. When some of us were growing up, men in
organized crime were denied burial in sacred ground. What are these
abortion clinics other than killing houses?
Catholicism used to produce a different kind of prelate. In 1953,
Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans issued a pastoral letter: "(L)et
there be no further discrimination or segregation in the pews, at the
Communion rail, at the confessional and in parish meetings, just as
there will be no segregation in the kingdom of heaven."
Resistance to integration of the parochial schools was fierce. The
battle went on for a decade. Catholics appealed to the Vatican. Pius XII
backed up the archbishop. In the Louisiana Legislature, bills were
introduced forbidding integration of the Catholic schools, bills
supported by Catholic legislators. The archbishop's response was to
threaten the Catholic lawmakers with excommunication.
When the rabid segregationist Leander Perez of Plaquemine Parish
persisted, Archbishop Rummel excommunicated him and the head of the
Citizens Council of Louisiana for "continuing to provoke the devoted
people of this venerable archdiocese to disobedience or rebellion in the
matter of opening our schools to all Catholic children."
Now, there was an archbishop.
Yet, serious as segregation was, it does not compare in evil with 40
million abortions since Roe v. Wade, many of which have been funded
through federal programs voted for by Catholic legislators.
Forty-eight Catholic members of Congress have written to Cardinal
McCarrick, warning of "great harm" to the Church and a backlash against
Catholics should bishops begin denying the Holy Eucharist to congressmen
who vote to support and fund abortions.
Cardinal McCarrick should take this as a challenge – and ask himself how
St. Thomas More would have reacted to this threat. Then, go forth and do
likewise, Your Eminence.
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Back to Home Page