Archbishop Chaput’s pro-life remarks ‘not Republican or Democratic,’ pro-life Democrat says
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

.- Author and politics writer Mark Stricherz has defended Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput from accusations of partisanship stemming from the archbishop’s vigorous pro-life statements made during this election year. Noting that the archbishop’s critiques are not limited to Democratic politicians, Stricherz argued that advocacy for overturning the Supreme Court pro-abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade is likewise not limited to only one political party.

Writing a Friday post on the Jesuits’ America magazine group blog “In All Things,” Stricherz responded to fellow blogger Michael Sean Winters’ description of the prelate as the nation’s “second most vocal supporter of the GOP.”

Calling the description a “mischaracterization,” Stricherz, a pro-life Democrat, said he thinks it reflects “a larger misunderstanding that progressive Catholics have about their co-religionist opponents.”

He then referenced Archbishop Chaput’s August remarks in which the prelate acknowledged many important issues are relevant to the election, but also asserted that the right to life is “foundational” and all other rights depend on it.

“We can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children,” Archbishop Chaput commented, continuing:

“Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent ‘pro-choice’ Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.”

Stricherz said the archbishop’s stance should not be interpreted in a partisan spirit.

“This position is not, strictly speaking, Republican or Democratic,” he noted, saying it was the same position of the late Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, Sr.

Stricherz, whose book Why the Democrats are Blue discusses the secularizing changes the Democratic Party has undergone, reported that during the 1992 Democratic National Convention Gov. Casey organized a full-page ad in the New York Times which called Roe v. Wade “the most momentous act of exclusion in our history.”

The governor had also opposed the re-election of Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Mark Singel because the latter reversed his previous opposition to Roe.

Further, Stricherz argued, Archbishop Chaput’s position is echoed in the Catechism, which teaches “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.”

He then noted the parties’ official positions on Roe v. Wade: “The Republican’s platform calls for the passage of a human life amendment, which if enacted would reverse Roe; the Democrats’ platform calls for preserving Roe. Naturally, the archbishop has made a descriptive statement about the GOP: that on cultural issues the GOP is ‘the natural ally’ of the church.”

“It is true that Chaput has criticized pro-choice Democrats, such as Barack Obama. But that's because they favor abortion rights, not because they are Democrats,” Stricherz wrote, adding that the archbishop did not say “nice things” about pro-abortion rights Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and did not imply support for a pro-life Republican Colorado gubernatorial candidate over his pro-life Democratic opponent.

Stricherz voiced his own suspicions that the archbishop is a Democrat, saying that the prelate as a seminarian was an “active volunteer” for Robert Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign and has opposed both the Iraq war and some Republican efforts aimed at illegal immigration.

“Chaput has offered encouragement to Catholics who oppose abortion but don’t seek to criminalize the procedure. But his position, as well as that of Casey, is that overturning Roe is foundational,” Stricherz explained.

Comparing the tolerance of abortion to the tolerance of slavery, he asked whether it was possible to oppose slavery but support the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision which protected the right to own a slave throughout the United States.

“This is a question that I think that progressive pro-lifers need to ask,” he concluded in his post to America Magazine’s blog.

Stricherz expanded on his comments in a Friday e-mail to CNA.

“Many progressive Catholics assume that any criticism on Democratic Party policy is an attack on the Democratic Party,” he wrote. “This is a gross simplification.”

“As blogger Mark Shea once wrote, the logic is reminiscent of Otter's speech in the movie Animal House that any criticism of Americans' conduct was an attack on America itself.

“More seriously, progressive Catholic Democrats assume that they are the only pro-life voices in the party: in fact, plenty of pro-life Democrats wish to overturn Roe and provide necessary resources to women in crisis,” Stricherz told CNA.

On Tuesday Cardinal Justin Rigali, who is chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-life Activities, joined Bishop William Murphy in issuing a joint statement from the bishops’ conference on the subject of faithful citizenship.

In their letter, the prelates insisted that reversing Roe v. Wade is not “a mere political tactic,” but is “a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: al
albuquerque nm usa 02/28/2009 10:47 AM EST
What I want to see is pro abortion politicans like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Giuliani, refused the sacrament. This should set an example for Catholics in the pews. If a priest knows a congregant voted for Obama, he should refuse him communion. Otherwise the church can talk all day and night and it doesn't mean anything. You aren't going to convince anyone if you can't convince your own flock.
Published by: Dorothy Swingle
Zanesville, Ohio 10/27/2008 06:13 PM EST
Why are the D-DEM. against LIFE????
Published by: Catholic Girl
Iselin, NJ USA 10/26/2008 01:46 PM EST
This is not just a Catholic issue. I am Catholic, my husband is Hindu, some of my friends are Jewish and some are Muslim. We all believe the same thing -- Abortion is an Intrinsic Evil. And, we would never vote for anyone who supports abortion.

A woman and a man have a choice --- say NO to sex --- unless you are willing to accept the responsibility of creating a new life
Published by: E.A.
St. Louis, MO 10/25/2008 08:02 PM EST
Thank you! Someone is seeing sense! Some people are so blinded by partisan politics that they interpret everything as an endorsement of their opponent, and it's not even close to true.
Published by: Dennis Dreyer
Fennville/Michigan/USA 10/25/2008 01:15 PM EST
Since the passage of Roe v. Wade, nearly 50 million babies have been killed in the U.S.,legally, by abortion. The ability to do this has been strongly supported by the Democrats in political positions and opposed by Republicans. No moral evil in the history of the U.S. can match this assault on defenseless children.
Published by: antran
Atlanta GA 30310 USA 10/25/2008 06:04 AM EST
This election is crucial for the security of the nation and the future of the Catholic Church, so no wonder the Bishops have been vocal, and we must thank Archbishop Chaput especially for his voice impartial but truly directional.
Published by: Larry H Morton
Fort Worth, Texas 10/25/2008 02:06 AM EST
It is very simple and no rationalization holds water to the fact that a vote for ANY Democrat is a vote for more unrestrained abortions in America.

How any Catholic can justify supporting Democrats who by the nature of their party platform endorse taking the lives of our most precious resources...is beyond comprehension.

Please pray that all Christians will do the right thing by voting true pro-life candidates.

Larry
Published by: Robert
Ky, US 10/25/2008 12:39 AM EST
Is this not a sign that these 'progressive' Catholics recognize that they might be supporting the wrong candidate when after hearing Catholic teaching and Truth they assert (unjustly) that a particular party or candidate is being endorsed? This would indicate that they are now aware that the circular arguments for policies of the one candidate such as removing all restrictions on abortion, and removing (rather than increasing) programs that would help mothers, is not the way to protect the inherent right to life. Are they planning on changing who they are voting for?

The only other option I see is that they are no longer in communion with the Church (as they are now choosing to ignore the teaching about the primary right for an innocent person to live, that is required for all other rights to exist.) Within this primary right, abortion currently has no other proportionate intrinsically grave evil to be compared with in this election. This would leave no valid justification for their intended vote.

Would this logic work with Catholics who share the accusations described in this article? I suppose only if they actually realize that the accusations were in error in the first place.
Published by: John and Jane Boccuzzi
Peoria Il. 10/24/2008 06:34 PM EST
This good news to learn that there are PRO-LIFE
DEMOCRATIC, ones does not hear about them, they are far to quite in there party, they MUST speak out louder, and fight the pro-choice policy in the Democratic party. Stricherz keep up the good work
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa