News broke yesterday that Senator Robert Casey Jr. will address the Democratic Convention in Denver later this month. For many Catholics, this is an important symbol and step towards healing the bitter disappointment that so many of us experienced in 1992 when Casey's father was denied a speaking role because of his pro-life commitment.
This milestone came in the same week that many were abuzz about the revised abortion language of the Democratic platform, and whether it signals a new desire to seek common ground with pro-life voters. Several Catholic commentators, including Lisa Cahill of Boston College, weighed in during a recent press briefing.
The platform language still affirms a commitment to the legal status of abortion. For the first time, however, it includes language that reflects the spirit and intent of Sen. Casey's own legislation, the Pregnant Women's Support Act, which is modeled after a policy platform proposed by Democrats for Life, the "95-10 Initiative" (for reducing abortion 95% in 10 years.)
Casey's bill reflects his own stated adherence to Pope John Paul II's call for "radical solidarity with women." This understanding suggests that a pro-life commitment must be accompanied by a radical support and respect for pregnant women and their families. The Casey bill and 95-10 both reflect the call by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, which called for "ensuring proper support for families and motherhood." Even further he suggested rethinking "labour, urban, residential and social service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively possible to take care of children and the elderly. (90)."
My problem with the abortion debate is that the solidarity to women and families articulated so powerfully by Pope John Paul is usually so severely lacking. Too often, some commentators on these issues show minimal solidarity with women, and frankly they can display quite the opposite.
While Sen. Casey will likely speak to a broad range of issues in Denver, including the dire straits of working and middle-class Americans, I hope he also shares his pro-life vision with the delegates. For as much as the leaders of both political parties get stuck in "either-or" rhetoric on the abortion issues, Casey's comprehensive approach can offer a way out of this polarized quagmire. The deep call within centuries of Catholic social teaching is for a culture that puts human life and dignity over materialism, community over excessive individualism, and principle over profit. Now there's an agenda we can all get behind.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Connie:
WWJD? He would tell people to "beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves".
In other words, he would call people on their lies.
Sorry, if that offends you.
1. Kathleen Brown spoke because her brother was a nominee for president. It's not unusual that a strong supporter of one of the other top nominees is going to speak at the convention.
2. The rise of Reagan Democrats coincided with attempts by the GOP to use race as a wedge issue. While social issues were an attraction, it's hard to dismiss the fact that the race played a role in attracting many of those working-class white ethnic voters. Wooing religoius conservatives and those alienated by race was an intertwined effort, not two separate efforts.
3. Unlike the GOP, Democrats have allowed pro-life Democrats to speak at recent conventions and talk about abortion. Except for a single line in Colin Powell's speech, no Republican has spoken in support of abortion rights at the convention since before 1992. In 2004, a pro-life Democrat--Jsmes Langevin--spoke at the convention and discussed pro-life issues.
1. Kathleen Brown spoke because her brother was a nominee for president. It's not unusual that a strong supporter of one of the other top nominees is going to speak at the convention.
Exactly. She endorsed Jerry Brown and refused to change her endorsement for Bill Clinton yet got to speak. Casey, a governor of a heavily populated swing state, also did not endorse Clinton and was denied the chance to speak after letting it be known that he wanted to speak about abortion.
2.) Correlation does not cause causation. And actually, the GOP began trying to use race as an issue in the 60s with the so-called "Southern strategy". "Ethnic" voters didn't actually begin leaving the Democrats until about 1980, about the time that opponents of abortion began seriously organizing politically, that prolifers (white "ethnic" Catholics) began leaving the Democrats, seeing in Reagan the first candidate who would be sympathetic to their views.
3.) Langevin introduced Ron Reagan Jr. at the convention and spoke about stem cell research -- which isn't the same as addressing abortion, though he probably would have liked to. That same year, a prolife Democrat, Zell Miller, addressed the GOP convention, speaking against abortion -- the only speaker at either convention to do so.
So, Michael, I do not know what universe you are drawing your opinions, beliefs, facts, etc., from, but a quick google of all of these issues will pretty easily put your claims to rest.
Well, your is definitely one interpretation of the facts. Mine is another. Nevertheless, we do need attend to the real pain that shapes the Casey story, whether true or imagined. We can't, however, let it hijack the direction of a party or cloud good policymaking.
Michael, I wouldn't call yours an interpretation of the facts. You are basically making up reality to suit your world view without much interest in facts.
Democrats can acknowledge the real pain caused by allowing the abortion industry to hijack the party without fear -- there is almost no chance that prolifers could ever take over the party and finally get a chance for sane, "good policymaking" to take place.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.