Telling Burke Where to Go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antonio_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Antonio_B

Guest
Dear readers,
Code: 
    ** I thought and still think it was a big mistake for the U.S. bishops not to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians as a "body," rather than as "individual" bishops. Well, here is a politician using the Episcopal Conference "own" words to attack Archbishop Burke's teaching**.
JESUIT MAGAZINE TO PUBLISH ARTICLE OF PRO-ABORTION POLITICIAN SLAMMING ARCHBISHOP

WASHINGTON DC, USA, August 9 (CNA) - The Jesuit magazine, America, will publish an article in its Aug. 16-23 issue, in which a pro-abortion politician says he will not let Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis “coerce” him into imposing the Church’s teachings on U.S. society.

The weekly international magazine provided reporters with an advance copy of the article last week.

In his article, titled “My Conscience, My Vote”, U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) says Archbishop Burke “attempted to use his interpretations of theology to coerce me into taking specific positions on matters that I believe are matters of constitutional law.”

This is the politician’s first public response to Archbishop Burke since last year, when it became public that the archbishop, then bishop for the Diocese of La Crosse, sent letters to three Wisconsin politicians. The letters warned the Catholic politicians that their support of “anti-life” legislation was causing grave scandal and putting their spiritual well being at risk.

Obey cites the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican’s doctrinal note on the political participation of Catholics to back his position and describes himself as a Midwestern populist progressive with Catholic values.

In the article, Obey admits to his mixed voting record on abortion, saying: “I have voted well over 60 times for limitations of one kind or another on a woman’s right to choose abortion.”

He says that while he “detests” abortion and agrees with Catholic teaching that it is morally wrong, he refuses “to force my views into laws that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart.”

Obey also admits that he has been corresponding privately with the bishop for about a year. He says that Archbishop Burke expressed concern about Obey’s votes on several abortion-related issues, but that Obey’s support of stem-cell research and his unwillingness to limit access to abortions in military hospitals were especially troubling to the bishop.

Antonio :crying:
 
It comes as no surprise that:
  • this is being published in America; and
  • advance copies were distributed to reporters.
How ironic that the man’s name is Obey!
 
Antonio B:
He says that while he “detests” abortion and agrees with Catholic teaching that it is morally wrong, he refuses “to force my views into laws that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart.”
Click to expand...
I already read the article and it is detestable.

I have recently finished reading a number of books on the founding of the US and on the Civil War. This quote that these laws would “tear this society apart” sound very familiar.

Vote for Keyes if you live in Illinois!
 
My Conscience, My Vote
By David R. Obey
I was raised a Catholic. I know in my bones that I would not hold the views I hold today if it were not for the values I learned in Catholic school. I am, I think it is fair to say, a Midwestern, populist progressive in the tradition of Robert LaFollette, George Norris and Theodore Roosevelt. Their progressive values, their drive for social justice and their passion for a square deal for the little guy are deeply rooted in the prophetic Jewish tradition and Christian social teaching. Few people have been more eloquent in their expression of those values than Pope Leo XIII, John XXIII and Paul VI. Virtually every issue I have fought for in my 35 years of service in the Congress of the United States has been driven by the values I learned from the nuns at St. James elementary school in Wausau, Wis. Through the years, I have voted to oppose an unjust war in Nicaragua, a fruitless war in Vietnam and a premature war in Iraq because I believe in the message of the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Because I believe we are our brother’s keepers, for 10 years I led efforts to push unpopular foreign aid legislation through the House of Representatives.

And because of the message “Whatsoever you did for the least of them, you did for me” (Mt 25:40), I have fought for a special preference for the poor on such issues as health care, low-income heating assistance, taxation based on ability to pay and federal investments in education programs, like Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that focus on the economically disadvantaged. Because I also believe in the dignity of work and the rightness of providing equal opportunity—as Bill Moyers has said, “People [are] equal in humanity but unequal in resources”—I support strengthening labor unions and raising the minimum wage. I consequently believe that the major task of modern religion is to help people understand their responsibilities toward one another. The task of government is to enable people to meet those responsibilities in an effective way.

There must be a moral purpose to public life, and as a public servant I try to apply my religious beliefs broadly, not narrowly and dogmatically. But I also recognize that the test of any American in public life, as John F. Kennedy said to a group of Southern Baptist leaders in 1960, is “not what kind of church I believe in, but what kind of America I believe in,” because this country does not belong to any one church; it belongs to people who belong to all churches and people who belong to none. It is ecumenical.
 
I have fought passionately for the issues I have mentioned because I think it is the right and moral thing to do. But I have never thought that those who disagree with me are not good Christians or good Catholics. In a democracy, public officials must reserve to themselves prudential judgments about how and under what circumstances to apply moral principles in a pluralistic society. But there are some in my own religion who believe it is the obligation of Catholic public officials to impose, through law, their religious values on issues such as abortion, upon those who do not share our religious beliefs.

I agree with my church that abortion in most cases is wrong. My wife and I lost two children, one immediately after birth and one shortly before birth. We do not need to be reminded of the preciousness of life; we are only too acutely aware of it. But I also understand that the Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that there are limits to what government can constitutionally do to limit a woman’s range of choices in determining whether to have an abortion.

In trying to deal with those questions over the last 30 years, I have tried to think through how to reflect both my respect for my own religious values and my respect for the constitutional processes of this American democracy. During that time I have voted well over 60 times for limitations of one kind or another on a woman’s right to choose abortion. I have, for instance, accepted as a reasonable compromise the Hyde Amendment on Medicaid funding for abortions and have even worked with Representative Henry Hyde (Republican of Illinois) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on the question of how to apply that amendment to health services provided under H.M.O.’s. I have voted to limit abortion rights in prison and for passage of proposals limiting later-term abortions. I also worked to reach a compromise on the complicated question of how best to persuade the Chinese government to end its policy of forced abortions. So I suppose it is fair to say that my record on abortion is mixed. I make no apology for that. I believe these issues are complicated.

I do not believe that a woman has an absolute constitutional right to determine whether she might have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy. But neither do I believe it is constitutional—or enforceable—in this society to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term if she has been raped or if there is a risk to her life or her health. In such cases, while I would hope a woman makes a choice against abortion, under our Constitution the choice is not mine. It is not any bishop’s. It is hers.

In short, I believe there are competing sets of equities on the part of the woman and the fetus that are far more complicated than some people on either side of the issue care to admit. So through the years I have tried to sort out those equities, guided by both my moral views, and my prudential view of how best to deal with these issues without tearing our society apart.

This is the first 1/3 of the article. For the rest you will have to get your own copy lest I break copyright laws.
 
So what Obey is saying…is that when Abortion was illegal BEFORE 1973 RVW…Society was “torn apart”…

Yes… I guess thats why all the senior citenzes I know along with older family members ONLY talk about how GOOD it was in the 30s, 40s 50s & somewhat in the 60s…those times were SO MUCH more EVIL than NOW…all because Abortion wasnt legal… :rolleyes:

Good to know that yet another politcian wont allow his religion to be “forced” upon the people…but has no problem letting EVIL be forced upon his voting record. :cool:
 
“without tearing society apart.”? Society did not begin to be torn apart over this issue until AFTER the supreme court decision in 1973 imposed in own abortion solution on the entire country.

Before that, every State had it’s own laws regulating abortion, and there was no particular outcry for change. The pro-abortion lobby, knowing they could not win in the legislatures, forced the issue into the courts. Society has been torn apart ever since.

The U.S. has the most liberal abortion “laws” of any nation. I put “laws” in quotes because no legislature passed them.

JimG
 
The bishop is not trying to force him to impose his views on the country. The bishop is simply trying to get him to realize that he is not Catholic, and to act accordingly.

JimG
 
40.png
SHEMP:
But neither do I believe it is constitutional—or enforceable—in this society to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term if she has been raped or if there is a risk to her life or her health. In such cases, while I would hope a woman makes a choice against abortion, under our Constitution the choice is not mine. It is not any bishop’s. It is hers.
Click to expand...
The irony- This is coming from a man who has been supporting overregulating business, labor, environmental laws and questions whether it is “enforceable” to enact laws protecting life. Furthermore, Obey supports abortion on demand, not “if she has been raped or if there is a risk to her life or her health.” Go ahead Congressman, keep taking the Eucharist unworthily and see what happens! Not to mention he looks like Mitch Pacwa!

 
The gentleman (politician) from Wisconsin should do some homework. The ’ right’ to abortion is not in the constitution. Au contraire, the constitution was written to protect the “right to life, liberty,…” Alas and alack, the gentleman from Wisconsin is sadly symptomatic of what has become of our once great nation under God.
 
40.png
SHEMP:
I have fought passionately for the issues I have mentioned because I think it is the right and moral thing to do. …

But there are some in my own religion who believe it is the obligation of Catholic public officials to impose, through law, their religious values on issues such as abortion, upon those who do not share our religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Okay, so he fought (and presumably voted) on all these other issues based on what he thought was morally right. But on the issue of abortion he can’t vote that way because…? America needs to realize that, if we are to take an optimistic view of representative democracy, every elected official is voting based on some moral conviction. Even atheists have moral codes that they try to adhere to. So every time a politician votes, he is, in the language of abortionists, imposing his morality on the American people. Congressman Obey didn’t seem to care that some American may not like being forced to send money to Uganda just because some religious kook from Wisconsin feels he has a moral obligation to do so. America needs to call for intellectual honesty and consistency. If we truly want elected officials who refuse to follow their consciences, then we have gotten exactly what we deserve.
 
What Obey fails to realize is that society is torn apart ~ literally ~ every time a child’s limbs are ripped from his body in an abortion.

It is the abortionists who are tearing society apart, one person at a time.

Pax Christi. <><
 
Code:
Panis Angelicas:
What Obey fails to realize is that society is torn apart ~ literally ~ every time a child’s limbs are ripped from his body in an abortion.

It is the abortionists who are tearing society apart, one person at a time.

Pax Christi. <><
Click to expand...
I guess Obey does not want to “obey” his bishop so he argues with him as if the bishop were not speaking authoritatively and as his pastor.

Antonio :crying:
 
Wonder how he would respond if we substituted the words"right to sit anywhere on the bus", or “right to vote”, or … substitute any of the civil rights issues. Inflicting morality on the U.S.? Is he anti death penalty? Has he voted for any federal criminal statute?
 
This is a clear window into the obscure and twisted reasoning of a dissident Catholic. If such an arrogant, liberal Democrat cannot be taught spiritual values by his bishop, then who is teaching him? Margaret Sanger? Gloria Steinem? Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? Madonna? Bill and Hillary Clinton?

It’s truly sad that the American bishops chose not to unite on a position in support of Church teaching. Obey needs to learn to obey.
 
Antonio B:
He says that while he “detests” abortion and agrees with Catholic teaching that it is morally wrong, he refuses “to force my views into laws that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart.”
Click to expand...
Let’s see.

He doesn’t want to force his views into laws, but is willing to force his views on the unborn.

shovel shovel shovel he’s really shoveling the cow-cookies.
 
Burke is not only on firm canonical ground, he is on firm scriptural ground. Look at this:
1 Corinthians 11:26 “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.”

If Burke failed to do his pastoral duty to tell these pols that they are sinning, there would be scandal. That would be sinning against the Body of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top