(emphasis added)... So, enter Joe Biden the Catholic. Joe Biden is a native of Scranton, Pennsylvania has Irish, blue collar, working-class roots which he will certainly attempt to bring to the campaign. He is a practicing Roman Catholic Christian. Along with his wife Jill, he attends St. Patrick Church, which is a part of the Diocese of Wilmington in Delaware. His careful discussion concerning all of the issues related to the deprivation of rights from children in the womb have been careful and strategic. He is a talented debater, a solid interviewee, a careful speaker on this issue. I believe that the Obama campaign is counting on this to stem the loss and attempt to reengage the efforts to attract Catholics and other orthodox Christians who simply will not accept any candidate who argues that an entire class of persons, children in the first home of the whole human race, can be summarily killed and that such an action should be called a “right”.
Joe Biden is also a member of that group of Catholics, from both major parties, who have come under unrelenting scrutiny from a growing and vocal part of the Catholic lay faithful. These Republicans and Democrats try to expound a “public/private” dichotomy on the fundamental human rights issue of our age, the Right to life from conception to natural death. Senator Biden the Catholic purports to be personally opposed to abortion and to “accept” the clear Catholic teaching that all human life is sacred and must be protected and respected from the moment of conception, throughout all of life’s spectrum and to a natural death. Yet, in his own words, he also "strongly supports Roe v Wade”, which was the Supreme Court decision that entrenched unrestricted abortion as the positive law in America.
While still a candidate for the Presidency himself, he participated in the NBC sponsored Presidential debate of April 27, 2008 in South Carolina. The venue gave him the opportunity to summarize his position as he responded to a question concerning the nomination of potential Supreme Court Justices and the decision of that Court in affirming the federal ban on partial birth abortions:
MODERATOR: “Senator Biden, as president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?”
BIDEN: “I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't have a specific question but I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That's why I lead the fight to defeat Bork. Thank God he is not in the court or Roe v. Wade would be gone by now.
“Number two, that's why I was so outspoken and have been criticized for being outspoken and leading the effort to try to defeat Roberts and Alito. That's why I opposed, the other, Thomas on the court. The truth of the matter is that this decision (Ed: referring to Partial Birth Abortion) was intellectually dishonest. I think it is a rare procedure that should only be available when the woman's life and health is at stake.
“But, what this court did is it took that decision, and it said -- put a Trojan horse in -- through dishonest reasoning, laid the groundwork for undoing Roe v. Wade. That's the danger of this decision. Not the specific procedure, but the rationale offered to justify, I think, the next step they're going to try to take.”
So, Senator Biden has tried to have it both ways. To say that he supports the ban on “Partial Birth” abortion but also opposed the Supreme Courts decision to uphold it? In an April 29th interview with the late Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” the now Vice Presidential candidate was asked to elaborate further on this position:
MR. RUSSERT: “Let me talk—turn to abortion. The ban on partial-birth abortions or late-term abortions, you supported that ban.”
SEN. BIDEN: “I did and I do.”
MR. RUSSERT: “And the Supreme Court came and basically upheld that ban...”
SEN. BIDEN: “That’s right.”
MR. RUSSERT: “...and you criticized the Supreme Court.”
SEN. BIDEN: “I’ll tell you why I criticized the Supreme Court. They upheld the ban, and then they engaged in what we lawyers call dicta that is frightening. You had an intellectually dishonest rationale for an honest justification for upholding the ban, and that was this: They went further, and then they, in the language associated with the decision said, by the way, they blurred whether there is the first trimester and third trimester in how much—I know this is going to sound arcane to the listeners—but whether or not they blurred the distinction between the government’s role in being involved in the first day and the ninth month.
“They blurred the role in terms of whether or not there is—they became paternalistic, talking about the court could consider the impact on the mother and keeping her from making a mistake. This is all code for saying, “Here we come to undo Roe v. Wade.” And it went on to say, by the way, that the life of the mother was, in fact, permissible exception, and it went on to say that even—that any woman could challenge, even if her health is at risk, could come back to the court to challenge that. So the bottom line here is, what they did is not so much the decision, the actual outcome of the decision, it’s what attended the decision that portends for a real hard move on the court to undo the right of privacy. That’s what I’m criticizing about the court’s decision...”
***
In choosing Senator Joe Biden, the Obama campaign has guaranteed that the Right to Life will continue to be a preeminent issue in the Presidential campaign of 2008...
[More]
Let me get this straight: When the partial-birth abortion ban appeared unlikely to withstand a Supreme Court challenge, Sen. Biden voted for it. When, to the shock of Sen. Biden and the rest of his Democrat cohorts, the Supreme Court actually upheld the ban, Sen. Biden then criticized the Court for not striking down the very ban for which he had voted. In fact, he has stated for the record that he will only support the types of Supreme Court nominees who would be likely to strike down such measures as the ban.
So, to put this in the nuanced terms of a previous pro-abortion Catholic running on the Democrat ticket for the highest office in the land, Joe Biden was FOR the ban on partial-birth abortion before he was AGAINST it.







16 comments:
"Joe Biden was FOR the ban on partial-birth abortion before he was AGAINST it."
Excellent analysis, brilliant closing. I might still be a Catholic were there more Catholics like you -- and fewer Catholics like Biden.
Keep up the Good work.
Biden simply talks until no one is listening anymore. He relies on the idea that if you walk in enough circles everyone will loose their balance and forget the original direction. If this is intelligence then he really is as smart as he says he is.
In the mean time I think this pick will help kick the abortion issue back into focus. Which should gear McCain into a pro-life direction, if he wasn't already.
As an aside...wtl, it seems to me that one would choose their religion based on tenants/principles and leaders, not the followers; especially the weak ones.
This was the year when abortion was to be a non-issue. Evangelicals were supposedly walking away from it, Catholics were tired of it. McCain would run away from it, and the Democrats would mollify pro-lifers by emphasizing their support for adoption and social spending to lessen the "need" for abortion. Surprise! The abortion issue is front and center this year! The pro-life cause isn't going away.
Let's see what the Bishops have to say about "Abortion Joe" Biden:
"Voting For Pro-Abortion Candidates Is "Evil" Kansas Bishops Say
Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) -- The Catholic bishops in Kansas have released a new voter's guide that makes it clear supporting a candidate who favors legal abortions is "evil." In the joint document, they say Catholic voters would "commit moral evil" by backing candidates who support abortion, euthanasia or embryonic research.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City and Bishops Ronald Gilmore of Dodge City, Paul Coakley of Salina, and Michael Jackels of Wichita joined together to endorse the document.
They lay out a very clear argument against abortion and how voting for pro-abortion candidates promotes the violation of Church teaching.
Despite the motives voters may have for supporting pro-abortion candidates, acts that "involve doing evil" such as "elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, and human cloning" must be opposed.
"Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil, that is, evil in and of themselves regardless of our motives or the circumstances. They constitute an attack against innocent human life," they say.
"In light of the above we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative," they explain.
Catholic voters who support pro-abortion candidates like Barack Obama often justify their decision by saying the candidate is in step with Catholic on other political issues.
The Kansas bishops address that and seem to support voting for the anti-abortion candidate because he supports taking fewer lives than the pro-abortion candidate.
"So when there is no choice of a candidate that avoids supporting intrinsically evil actions, especially elective abortion, we should vote in such a way as to allow the least harm to innocent human life and dignity," the bishops say.
"We would not be acting immorally therefore if we were to vote for a candidate who is not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses an even greater threat to human life and dignity," they conclude.
Well, I'm Catholic. Baptized that way. You don't represent me.
And I don't recall any mention at church this morning about the Pope and the Vatican anointing you as our voice, as it were, in America and/or American politics.
So why have you chosen the name Catholics Against Joe Biden?
Do you have documented evidence that yours are the positions of all Catholics in the American electorate? And, if so, would you please provide said documented evidence?
If not, please change your name to something along the lines of:
"Eight Percent of Catholics Against Biden";
"Some Catholics Against Biden";
"Opus Dei Against Biden"; or,
"Slicky Willie Donohue, A Couple of Catholic League Pals, and Anyone Who Will Pay Us Against Biden."
See, some day, if, in fact, you are Catholic, you will have to stand before St. Pete and he's bound to start guffawing over this one while holding both thumbs downward.
Hate to see you boys and/or girls spending eternity in purgatory or worse for sloppy fact presentation and grammar.
Dear Anonymous,
No one is "baptized Catholic". You are baptized as a Christian. That is why they Catholic Church recognizes as valid the baptismal rite of most Christian sects. If you are claiming the label Catholic for yourself, then you must accept the authority of Church teaching. If you do not accept the authority of Church teaching, then it is you who is usurping the title of Catholic. If you are truly in accord with the Holy See, I cannot imagine you have an argument with the content of this web site.
Anon,
I believe this would refer to you:
Eight Percent of Catholics for Biden";
Do you listen to anything else at Church when you go?
"If you are truly in accord with the Holy See, I cannot imagine you have an argument with the content of this web site."
C-Mom,
Having read this website and yours, with the blatant support for capital punishment displayed on each website in direct contrast to Catholic teachings and the Vatican's position, one can only wonder why you and Slick Willie choose to avoid shining the light of rigorous self-examination on yourselves?
Or, instead, shall we discuss the Vatican's opposition to the war in Iraq and the blatant advocacy for that war and battles elsewhere as displayed on your website and by Slick Willie?
Hypocrisy, it ought to be a sin.
O brave anonymous, how many other red herrings do you wish to bring up rather than face the fact that you support candidates who view abortion as a right rather than an evil.
Here is something you might ponder from the Pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
"O brave anonymous..."
Donnie,
I'm not going to log into this or any other website. Did that twice. Got bombarded with political and sales emails. Nope. No sir. Not again.
I wouldn't log into a website run by the Vatican or God Himself. Everybody's got a pitch and I don't need the spam email garbage.
If you don't like the fact that I'm not going to log into this website, say a couple of rosaries. Drink some sacramental wine. The whining on your end will pass. Like a kidney stone, probably, but it'll pass.
If you think the Pope's statement as a cardinal contradicts his statement as pope, then please make sure to save me seats down front and center for your appearance before St. Pete on J Day. I've just got to see you try (and fail) to float that trial balloon past the Man with the keys to the front door.
Moral to today's lesson: Yankees almost always beat Cardinals, but Popes never lose to the Redbirds.
Never.
O brave anonymous, you are willing to write about anything other than the fact that you support politicians who view the right to kill children as a sacred right aren't you? I have used my real name on blog sites for years without being overwhelmed with political or sales e-mail. Good filters can accomplish wonders. However, I also haven't been attempting to defend Catholic pro-abort politicians, so I guess I can understand why a Catholic doing that would prefer anonymity.
You draw a distinction between what Cardinal Ratizinger wrote and what he has written as pope. Please link to the statement that you allege contrdicts his statement as cardinal. I'll be eager to read that statement.
More honest members of the party you support understand the position of the Pope in regard to their advocacy of abortion:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-05-15-pope-catholic-democrats_N.htm
Dear Anonymous,
I would be most interested in what statements you read on my web site blatantly support positions contrary to Catholic teaching. You mention capital punishment. I have never advocated capital punishment. I wholeheartedly agree with the Church's position that in this day and age the need to resort to such a measure is virtually non-existent. I also checked my site meter and saw no evidence that anyone had perused a great number of my posts. Therefore, the validity of your claim that you have scoured my website and found great evidence of hypocrisy is very questionable.
As Mr. McClarey has suggested, let's stick to the subject at hand. Supporting abortion is always without exception, contrary to Catholic teaching. For anyone to claim otherwise is erroneous. For a Catholic in the public eye to do so is a cause of scandal.
Yeah, I'm not sure where our anonymous friend is getting the support for capital punishment nonsense. I am opposed to capital punishment, as is Steve Dillard. I don't know whether Christopher is opposed to capital punishment or not.
But the issue is still a red herring. Capital punishment is different in both kind and degree from abortion.
"[And I don't recall any mention at church this morning about the Pope and the Vatican anointing you as our voice, as it were, in America and/or American politics.
So why have you chosen the name Catholics Against Joe Biden?]"
In defense, is starting a group within a group analogous to being annointed as a voice for an entirety? Anonymous, are you also writing against "Floridians for Obama" and "Texans for Obama"? Obviosuly, the leaders of these groups do not represent the majority of Floridians or Texans. Are you questioning the leaders of these groups? Asking them who anointed them to represent residents, as it were, of Florida and Texas.
Dear Anon,
So why have you chosen the name Catholics Against Joe Biden?
I asked myself the same question when I first saw the blogspot "Catholics for Obama". That site doesn't speak for me, and has deleted comments I attempted to post.
Here, at least, you've been able to share your thoughts.
God bless.
The name is quite simple really. This blog is a sequel in a manner of speaking to the Catholics against Rudy blog that these same contributers put together.
It is my hope that there will be even more "Catholics against X" blogs whenever any Catholic running for a major office acts against Church teaching, be he/she from the Left or the Right.
Post a Comment