Much has been made about how the House leadership permitted a vote on the abortion-restricting Stupak-Pitts amendment in order to get the blessing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The USCCB, we are told, was so dedicated to the prospect of universal health care it shipped bulletin inserts to parishes across America, demanding that parishioners call upon their representatives to vote against the bill if it did not sufficiently restrict abortion.
As far as the abortion restriction, the USCCB apparently persuaded 35 Catholic Democrats to vote for its approved Stupak-Pitts amendment. Given the USCCB's teaching on the subject, you might then expect all 35 of them to go on to vote for the bill. But only 29 of them did.
Six of them -- Jason Altmire and Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, John Boccieri of Ohio, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi, all Catholics, voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment and then against the bill. Is there going to be a lot of hand-wringing about how these good Catholics voted against Catholic teaching? Or did they sufficiently fulfill their duty by helping to ensure that Stupak-Pitts was in the bill?
Tags: health care reform, stupak, us bishops
You disingenuously ask: "Is there going to be a lot of hand-wringing about how these good Catholics voted against Catholic teaching?" Why is otherwise smart Sarah all of a sudden playing dumb? We know you know better than to call "Catholic teaching" what amounts to the mere "approval" of a congressional bill, right? Since there is NO real “Catholic” justification for lambasting these six congressmen, why do you have to distort the facts, manipulate the issue, and deform the truth? Doesn’t ethics and fairness play any part in how you write and what you say? Are we asking too much of you? Do you always have to put ideology over the facts? We're praying for you!
Its not disingenuous, however you may not know why this is genuine. Its sad. So much in the last 16 years has become hidden.
I give thanks to God for the internet, were most of what I'm about to say can be found on the Vatican's own website.
There are several catholic teachings that would be wrong with voting against the bill. I'm going to list 2: 1) Jesus' call for treating the sick in the corporal works of mercy in Matthew 25. 2) Pope Benedict's call for everyone to have health care. There are more, but disobeying both intentionally is considered a grave sin -- its just left to the individual to enforce where abortion is left to the bishops to enforce.
Its not a distortion. Voting against a bill that had abortion protections to give health care to some changes the game. That's equally sinful as to allow abortions in a bill.
There is a catholic doctrine that would apply here but it would excuse both sides those that wanted health care w/o abortion protections and those that didn't wand health care. Its called the double standard view.
Usually you hear it as an analogy: A judge can feel like the judge did his job even if he had to condemn someone to death thus breaking the 5th commandment doing his job. It applies here. However it applies equally to both sides which is why you wont hear the clergy use it.
Its sad how little Roman Catholics know about their own church. There is a hypocrisy in their doctrines over this.
I'm going to pray that selective use of doctrine is stopped and that the damage done is healed.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.