House Dems Release Statement

[Texsox]

House Democrats Release Historic

 

Catholic Statement of Principles

 

Expresses Commitment to Dignity of Life and Belief that Government Has 'Moral Purpose'

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A majority of Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House led by Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) today released a statement of principles. Signed by 55 House Democrats, the statement documents how their faith influences them as lawmakers, making clear their commitment to the basic principles at the heart of Catholic social teaching and their bearing on policy - whether it is increasing access to education for all or pressing for real health care reform, taking seriously the decision to go to war, or reducing poverty. Above all, the document expresses the signers' commitment to the dignity of life and their belief that government has moral purpose.

 

 

 

The full text of the statement and the complete list of signers follow.

 

Statement of Principles

 

By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives

 

 

 

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

 

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

 

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion B we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

 

In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

 

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

 

As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours.

 

Rosa L. DeLauro

 

David R. Obey

 

Wm. Lacy Clay

 

Hilda L. Solis

 

James R. Langevin

 

Bart Stupak

 

Anna Eshoo

 

Bill Pascrell

 

Gene Taylor

 

Raul M. Grijalva

 

Carolyn McCarthy

 

John B. Larson

 

Ed Pastor

 

Joe Baca

 

William Delahunt

 

Tim Ryan

 

Silvestre Reyes

 

Mike Thompson

 

Linda T. Sanchez

 

Charles A. Gonzalez

 

Xavier Becerra

 

Diane Watson

 

Michael H. Michaud

 

Nydia Velazquez

 

Jim Marshall

 

Frank Pallone

 

John T. Salazar

 

James P. McGovern

 

George Miller

 

Tim Holden

 

James L. Oberstar

 

Dale E. Kildee

 

Patrick J. Kennedy

 

Cynthia McKinney

 

James P. Moran

 

Michael Capuano

 

Richard E. Neal

 

Mike Doyle

 

Peter A. DeFazio

 

Maurice Hinchey

 

Dennis A. Cardoza

 

Joseph Crowley

 

Jim Costa

 

Lucille Roybal-Allard

 

Loretta Sanchez

 

Robert Brady

 

Marty Meehan

 

Grace Napolitano

 

Luis V. Gutierrez

 

Jose Serrano

 

Stephen Lynch

 

Edward J. Markey

 

Nancy Pelosi

 

Lane Evans

[Texsox]

I would have leapt for joy if this had been a bi-partisan letter. I wonder if the GOP was even asked.

[Texsox]

Public Officials Under God

 

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006; A15

 

When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he said some things about Catholic bishops that might, in today's climate, be condemned as insolence toward church authority.

 

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act," Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. "I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me."

 

Kennedy, of course, spoke those words in an effort to fight anti-Catholic bigotry. That was long before the 2004 campaign, in which John F. Kerry, only the third Roman Catholic in American history to be nominated for the presidency by a major party, found himself fending off certain prelates who said that his stand on abortion meant he could not receive communion -- and also meant that Catholics should not vote for him.

 

The episode caused anger, anguish and reflection among Democratic politicians who are Catholic. "People felt their faith was being questioned, and they were angry that ideologues were using the church for their own purpose," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

 

Such reflections have produced a remarkable document that will be released this week, a "Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives." It is, to the best of my knowledge, an unprecedented attempt by a large number of elected officials to explain the relationship between their religious faith and their public commitments.

 

"As Catholic Democrats in Congress," the statement begins, "we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose."

 

The statement is only six paragraphs, which gives it clarity and focus. After a paragraph on Catholic social teaching about the obligations to "the poor and disadvantaged," the writers get to the hard issue, insisting that "each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

 

What's significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and James Langevin.

 

In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being in disagreement with the church in some areas."

 

With any luck, this statement will provoke two debates, one outside the Catholic Church and one inside.

 

One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the Republicans' electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself.

 

For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church."

 

If nothing else, these Catholic Democrats will haul out into the open a discussion with their bishops, with their fellow Catholics and with their constituents that has been festering underground. "We were silent for too long," DeLauro said. "And that meant you were defined by others, not by yourselves."

[Rex Kickass]

I think its a great thing.

 

And I don't think this is all about abortion. I think this is about Democrats - of all makes, models and colors standing back up and taking back their faith.

 

Too often we stereotype people on each side of the aisle of being overly pious bible thumpers or godless or whatever. The truth is that there are men and women on both sides of the aisle for whom religion and spirituality is important to them personally. And it should be known and celebrated.

[Wong & Owens]

I'm sorry, I'm not impressed. It's like a giant collective campaign promise-- sounds and looks good on paper, but in reality will not be carried out at all, and nobody will really care.

 

Less statements, less feel-good-about-ourselves bulls***, more action. More putting up and more shutting up. Quit wasting tax dollars composing stupid worthless "Up With Catholic Politicians" mantras and do your f***ing jobs.

[samclemens]

I'm sorry, I'm not impressed.  It's like a giant collective campaign promise-- sounds and looks good on paper, but in reality will not be carried out at all, and nobody will really care.

 

Less statements, less feel-good-about-ourselves bulls***, more action.  More putting up and more shutting up.  Quit wasting tax dollars composing stupid worthless "Up With Catholic Politicians" mantras and do your f***ing jobs.

 

hear, hear. this is pandering to religious folk who they are afraid will vote conservative in upcoming elections. they are trying to neutralize the religious aspect of american politics, which is as impossible to do today is it was on the first election this country ever had.

 

even if it was bipartisan, it is obviously smoke and mirrors. but if it makes you feel good, then good for you, cause thats exactly what this whole thing is about.

 

in conclusion, this declaration will change absolutely nothing when it comes to the policies of the democratic party.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry, I'm not impressed.  It's like a giant collective campaign promise-- sounds and looks good on paper, but in reality will not be carried out at all, and nobody will really care.

 

Less statements, less feel-good-about-ourselves bulls***, more action.  More putting up and more shutting up.  Quit wasting tax dollars composing stupid worthless "Up With Catholic Politicians" mantras and do your f***ing jobs.

 

This wasn't done on government time.

[samclemens]

This wasn't done on government time.

 

i think its safe to say that a declaration signed by 55 democrat politicians had plenty of government time put into it. what are you saying, that they all got togethor during their lunch breaks and after 5 pm?? its all government time when you are in the national assembly.

[Wong & Owens]

This wasn't done on government time.

 

Yeah right, they got together at TGI FRidays for lunch on Saturday and hammered out the rough draft.

[mr_genius]

well, i guess that means they'll vote to atleast limit the practice of abortion.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah right, they got together at TGI FRidays for lunch on Saturday and hammered out the rough draft.

 

I guess you're right. Better they spend their time shooting 78 year old men I guess.

[Wong & Owens]

well, i guess that means they'll vote to atleast limit the practice of abortion.

 

It means nothing, it's a fart in the wind.

[Wong & Owens]

I guess you're right. Better they spend their time shooting 78 year old men I guess.

 

Have you EATEN at Friday's? It sure made me angry enough to shoot someone.

[Balta1701]

well, i guess that means they'll vote to atleast limit the practice of abortion.

So, in other words, you're saying they'll get Bush's FDA to finally follow its own reccomendations and make plan B contraception available without a prescription?

[samclemens]

I guess you're right. Better they spend their time shooting 78 year old men I guess.

 

that was great. i especially like the fact that it has everything to do with what we are talking about right now. bitter?

[Rex Kickass]

Have you EATEN at Friday's?  It sure made me angry enough to shoot someone.

 

I ran over two women running away from that place last week. But this is talking about religion. And let's be honest Friday's wouldn't be involved here. Where are you going after church? That's right - I'm talkin Bob Evans baby.

[samclemens]

I ran over two women running away from that place last week. But this is talking about religion. And let's be honest Friday's wouldn't be involved here. Where are you going after church? That's right - I'm talkin  Bob Evans baby.

 

i must concur. bob evans is a guilty pleasure.

 

[mr_genius]

It means nothing, it's a fart in the wind.

 

 

maybe, but i don't think so. it would be politically dangerous to sign something like that then go against it (flip flopping = good political ads for opponent).

[mr_genius]

So, in other words, you're saying they'll get Bush's FDA to finally follow its own reccomendations and make plan B contraception available without a prescription?

 

 

well, i guess that would depend on your definition of an abortion. i don't consider ending early pregnancies to be wrong. in the first couple weeks there isn't a living person being terminated. just my opinion

Edited March 1, 2006 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

well, i guess that would depend on your definition of an abortion.  i don't consider ending early pregnancies to be wrong.  in the first couple weeks there isn't a living person being terminated. just my opinion

Plan B contraception in no way ends a pregnancy. It prevents conception.

[mr_genius]

Plan B contraception in no way ends a pregnancy.  It prevents conception.

 

oh, i thought you meant something else. i've never taken birth control pills so i really don't know what i'm talking about

Edited March 1, 2006 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

i think its safe to say that a declaration signed by 55 democrat politicians had plenty of government time put into it. what are you saying, that they all got togethor during their lunch breaks and after 5 pm?? its all government time when you are in the national assembly.

 

LMAO. How about all the politicians that find time to appear in Rush's show? The Saturday morning news shows? This is well within what leaders should be doing. They are experessing their views and defining their beliefs. Seems like a great use of their time.

 

If this was a group of GOPers talking on Rush you would be lapping it up.

Damn it McCain, you got filing to do, stop that interview.

[Balta1701]

oh, i thought you meant something else.  i've never taken birth control pills so i really don't know what i'm talking about

Nope, this is the "Morning after pill" I'm talking about. In only prevents conception, which is why it must be taken within 72 hours of the, um, ya know. But it's approval as an over the counter drug has been hung up in the FDA for years now for absolutely no medical reason, to the point that the states are taking action against the FDA.

[samclemens]

LMAO. How about all the politicians that find time to appear in Rush's show? The Saturday morning news shows? This is well within what leaders should be doing. They are experessing their views and defining their beliefs. Seems like a great use of their time.

 

If this was a group of GOPers talking on Rush you would be lapping it up. 

Damn it McCain, you got filing to do, stop that interview.

 

i never said they arent allowed to put out statements like this. how did you get that out of anything i've said? all i said was that it was written up and signed on government time, and it is just feel-good b.s.

 

this isnt a political thing for me. read my above posts. even if it was bipartisan or republican, it would still be smoke and mirrors.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Nope, this is the "Morning after pill" I'm talking about.  In only prevents conception, which is why it must be taken within 72 hours of the, um, ya know.  But it's approval as an over the counter drug has been hung up in the FDA for years now for absolutely no medical reason, to the point that the states are taking action against the FDA.

No, it doesn't always work by preventing conception. At the long end of the 72 hour window it most often works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. If the timing is right, though, the big dose of hormone will also prevent ovulation or conception, but that timing would occur on the short end of the 72 hour window.