# Christian Political Thoughts



## auparavant (Sep 12, 2012)

_Stericycle, aborted fetuses and the millions of dollars in investment that Romney made:_

*http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec*

*Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show*


*And these documents challenge Romney's claim that he left Bain Capital in early 1999.*

—By David Corn
 | Mon Jul. 2, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

795








 Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/Zuma
Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the _Huffington Post_ reported  that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an  investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a  medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion  groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning  clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to  sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the  revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among  values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.
*More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:*


The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain 

EXCLUSIVE: Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Firm That Profited on US Outsourcing

Romney Tax Tips: 10 Ways to Stiff the IRS 

Mitt Romney's Long History of Misremembering His Past
Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back

How Romney Fibs—and Gets Away With It
 
 But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down  the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999  to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely  had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue.  But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and  Exchange Commission—and obtained by _Mother Jones_—list Romney as  an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped  Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding  tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The  documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official  account of Romney's exit from Bain.

 The Stericycle deal—the abortion connection aside—is relevant because  of  questions regarding the timing of Romney's departure from the  private  equity firm he founded. Responding to a recent _Washington Post_ story   reporting that Bain-acquired companies outsourced jobs, the Romney   campaign insisted that Romney exited Bain in February 1999, a month or   more before Bain took over two of the companies named in the _Post_'s   article. The SEC documents undercut that defense, indicating that   Romney still played a role in Bain investments until at least the end of   1999.
 Here's what happened with Stericycle. In November 1999, Bain Capital  and  Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm,  filed  with the SEC a Schedule 13D,   which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had   jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a   fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry. (That April,   Stericycle had announced plans to buy the medical-waste businesses of   Browning Ferris Industries and Allied Waste Industries.) The SEC filing   lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal,   including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty   High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and   Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot). And it notes that Romney   was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and   President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd."

The document also states that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and  dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in  Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities  that invested in the company. That was about 11 percent of the  outstanding shares of common stock. (The whole $75 million investment  won Bain, Romney, and their partners 22.64 percent of the firm's  stock—the largest bloc among the firm's owners.) The original copy of  the filing was signed by Romney.

Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names  Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with  respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the  private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive  named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle  stock?
The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also call into question  the account of Romney's exit from Bain that the company and the Romney  campaign have provided.

Stericycle was a lucrative investment for Romney and Bain. The company  had entered the medical-waste business a decade earlier, when it took  over a food irradiation plant in Arkansas and began zapping medical  waste, rather than strawberries, with radiation. The company  subsequently replaced irradiation with a technology that used  low-frequency radio waves to sterilize medical waste—gowns, masks,  gloves, and other medical equipment—before it was transported to an  incinerator. By mid-1997, Stericycle was the second-largest  medical-waste disposal business in the nation. Two years later, it was  the largest. With 240,000 customers, its operations spanned the United  States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Fortune ranked it No. 10 on its list of  the 100 fastest growing companies in the nation.


----------



## auparavant (Sep 12, 2012)

*cont'd

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec

* 
But the company had its woes, accumulating a troubling safety record along the way. In 1991, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited its Arkansas operation for 11 workplace safety violations. The facility had not provided employees with sufficient protective gear, and it had kept body parts, fetuses, and dead experimental animals in unmarked storage containers, placing workers at risk. In 1995, Stericycle was fined $3.3 million—later decreased to $800,000—by Rhode Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at its medical-waste treatment facility in Woonsocket. Two years later, workers at another of its medical-waste processing plants in Morton, Washington, were exposed to tuberculosis. In 2002 and 2003—after Bain and its partners had bought their major interest in the firm—Stericycle reached settlements with the attorneys general in Arizona and Utah after it was accused of violating antitrust laws. It paid Arizona $320,000 in civil penalties and lawyers' fees, and paid Utah $580,000.

Despite the firm's regulatory run-ins, the deal worked out well for Bain. In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million. The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004. By that point it had earned $49.5 million. It was not until six years later that anti-abortion activists would target Stericycle for collecting medical waste at abortion clinics. This campaign has compared Stericycle to German firms that provided assistance to the Nazis during the Holocaust. A Stericycle official told Huffington Post that its abortion clinics business constitutes a "small" portion of its total operations. (Stericycle declined a request for comment from Mother Jones.)

In 1995, Stericycle was fined by Rhode Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at its medical-waste treatment facility.
In response to questions from Mother Jones, a spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time." (The Romney presidential campaign did not respond to requests for comment.)
But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) 

Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.

All of this undermines Bain's contention that Romney, though he maintained an ownership interest in the firm and its funds, had nothing to do with the firm's activities after February 1999. The Stericycle deal may raise red flags for anti-abortion activists. But it also raises questions about the true timing of Romney's departure from Bain and casts doubt on claims by the company and the Romney campaign that he had nothing to do with Bain business after February 1999.


----------



## Shimmie (Sep 14, 2012)

Here is one of the websites I'm subscribed to:

*Priests for Life*

http://www.priestsforlife.org/prayers/index.aspx

The Catholic Ministries are some of the most outspoken and ferverent for human life in the womb and I'm right there with them in full support.   I have so much respect for the heart of this Ministry; respecting and preserving life. 

:Rose:  :Rose:  :Rose: 

*Food for Thought (not chocolate): *

Even if Romney were innocent and as clean as the the driven snow and loved all Black people and was even married to a Black women who from a previous marriage or lifestyle had children as _Black as night _ and proudly displayed his love for them publicly, as well as children of their own, and he openly forsaking all others who objected.   And if the man, placed all honour upon Black people.....

He'd still be invisiable to those who sing the praises of Obama whose very same support of abortion and disposal of aborted babies is no less existant and no less evil than that of Romney's.    

*Both men* are equally guilty of this massive murder of innocent babies.  

It's just unthinkable that politicians have the power to 'end' this masaquer and yet they do nothing, but allow it to continue and to grow even worse.  Abortion clinics advertise as if it were a trip to a health spa and babies are killed at 36 weeks in his/her mother's womb.  Those born alive are left to die; others are stabbed at the base of their neck and pulled from the mother's womb, without life or any hopes of it.    

How could any president overlook the extent of these abortion procedures and not put a stop to it?  

  Praying for the hearts of these men, both of them, Obama and Romney.  

*They are both equally wrong* and they both need the heart of God to lead this country.   God loves them both, equally and equally they are both outside of God's order.   Equally they both need to fall on their knees seeking the forgiveness of God for their sins and for the massive blood upon their hands of innocent lives.   

I'm praying for them, because I care and want only God's best for their souls and for the best of the lives of the people in this country.   For without repentence and without God, neither of them have nothing.  

:Rose:  *I cannot defend Obama's sin by exploiting Romney.... *

Neither of them, *neither Obama nor Romney* have God's heart, if so, it would show and not be hidden. 

I'm praying for them...  and for the healing of this country.  

:Rose:  :Rose:  :Rose: 

*The Silent No More Awareness Campaign*

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

Protect ALL Life​


----------



## Shimmie (Sep 14, 2012)

Obama and Abortion...

http://www.nrlc.org/Sex-SelectionAbortion/Release053112.html

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Thursday, May 31, 2012, 9:30 AM EDT

For further information:   NRLC Federal Legislation, 202-626-8820, [email protected], or NRLC Media Relations, 202-626-8825, [email protected]
U.S. House of Representatives to vote on ban today
President Obama comes out against ban on sex-selection abortions; National Right to Life says Obama “stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions.”


WASHINGTON –  ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper has posted an exclusive report that President Obama opposes the bill to prohibit performing or coercing abortions to eliminate unborn babies of an undesired sex – usually girls – on which the U.S. House of Representatives will vote this afternoon.

Tapper raised the question at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, but initially got no answer.  However, Tapper now reports on the ABCNews website:  “The White House got back to me this evening [May 30] to say the president opposes the bill.”  

Tapper reproduces a statement from a White House press aide:



> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...tion-and-abortion-todays-q-for-os-wh-5302012/
> 
> *Legislation About Gender Selection and Abortion — Today’s Q for O’s WH – 5/30/2012*
> 
> ...


 
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, “It is appalling, but not surprising, that President Obama now stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions.”

The legislation is the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) (H.R. 3541).  The House will vote on the bill under “Suspension of the Rules,” which means that a two-thirds vote will be required for passage.   The roll call is expected to occur before 3 PM EDT today.

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things:  

(1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”; 

(2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; 

(3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or 

(4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose.  However, “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”  

The bill also specifically states, 

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”  

*The White House statement falsely claimed that the bill would “subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations” for an abortion*.

NRLC has posted extensive information on the practice of sex-selection abortion in the U.S., and on the legislation, at its website here:  

http://www.nrlc.org/Sex-SelectionAbortion/index.html



 --------------------------

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization.

To go to the Sex-Selection Abortion index page, click here.
To go to the NRLC homepage, click here.


----------



## Shimmie (Sep 14, 2012)

*Barack Obama, pro-abortion extremist -- and why the news
media avoid tough scrutiny of Obama's abortion history*

http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release082312.html

_This is an update from the National Right to Life Committee in Washington, D.C., issued Thursday, August 23, 2012._


"The new obsession is the platform of the Republican Party on abortion, which is an obsession,” [Republican National Committee Chairman Reince] Priebus said Wednesday on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Fox News. “What about the obsession about a guy who believes in partial-birth abortion? I mean, what about that obsession? I mean, why aren’t we talking about that very, that minority view of abortion in our country that this president holds dear to his heart? We’re not talking about that.”
("Reince Priebus attacks Obama on abortion," by Kevin Robillard, Politico, August 23, 2012.)

In the opinion piece below, "Obama the abortion extremist," published today by Politico, National Review Editor Rich Lowry asserts, "The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal." Lowry goes on to discuss how this hostility to the pro-life position manifests as a proclivity for subjecting pro-life Republican candidates to intense scrutiny on abortion-related issues, while ignoring or glossing over the extreme positions that Barack Obama has taken throughout his political career on abortion-related issues.

As the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) observed in an August 20 release, "The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the 'abortion rights' positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration."

The August 20 NRLC release is here.

In October, 2008, NRLC published a detailed article examining the news media's collaboration in allowing Obama, during the post-nomination phase of the 2008 campaign, to rewrite his history on various abortion-related issues, including legislation dealing with infants born alive during abortions. The article, which is here, also explores the news media's near-total disinterest in examining the implications of Obama's endorsement of the most extreme pro-abortion measure ever proposed in Congress, the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," which would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.

An NRLC "white paper" documenting Obama's actual history on the born-alive infants legislation is here.

An NRLC statement on President Obama's recently announced (but virtually unreported) opposition to the pending legislation to ban the use of abortion for sex selection is here.

To view "Video: Obama Says He's 'Pro-Choice' on Third-Trimester Abortions," by John McCormack, The Weekly Standard blog, August 22, 2012, click here.

For further information, contact the NRLC Federal Legislation Department at 202-626-8820 or [email protected]

[The Rich Lowry essay follows:]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html

Obama the abortion extremist
By: Rich Lowry
August 23, 2012 04:33 AM EDT 

If NARAL has a man of the year award, it should go to Todd Akin.

Not only did the newly minted Missouri Senate candidate express his position on abortion in the most discrediting way possible, he threatens Republican hopes to take the Senate. By throwing away a winnable seat, he could preserve a Democratic majority that will sooner desecrate the American flag on the Senate floor than restrict abortion in any manner.

Predictably, the Akin flap has created a feeding frenzy. In recent days, the national political debate has seemingly telescoped down to the question of whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. The Republican platform is silent on these exceptions, while Paul Ryan opposes them, stoking Democratic attacks and media analysis about the renewal of the fabled “war on women.”

The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal.

From a strictly down-the-middle, neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite and countervailing side is equally “extreme.” It would never even occur to the media to apply this standard to abortion. Under the guise of upholding abortion rights, Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact—he did.

In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago of obfuscation and distortions.

The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal status of infants still in the womb.

About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation. But he couldn’t even bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility taking what might be only a few fragile breaths on this Earth. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.

President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.

He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.

[to read the rest of the Lowry essay on the Politico site, click here.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, NRLC works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

-----------------------------

*Both men*...equally guilty.

There's even more 'hidden' about Obama ...   Mark 4:22

  Pray for the Protection of our Babies...


----------



## Shimmie (Sep 14, 2012)

*The original Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001-2002

**(opposed by state Senator Barack Obama):*



SB1095 / SB 1662

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. 

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.


----------



## auparavant (Sep 18, 2012)

Hear it from the horse's mouth:


Catholics for Obama:

http://www.barackobama.com/catholic...8465173|pl||&gclid=COa4suOqvrICFcJo4Aodn3YAKQ

_
Letter from National Catholics for Obama

In 2008, Catholics from all walks of life and backgrounds came together to help elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. Today, we join together as Catholics who are committed to our faith and our country to endorse President Obama for re-election.

We endorse the President because of his tireless focus on economic security for middle-class families. President Obama is committed to the basic promise of our country: If you work hard and play by the rules, you can build a good life for yourself and your family. The President cut taxes for the average middle-class family by $3,600 in his first term. He has saved over a million American jobs in the auto industry, shielding countless families from heartache and bankruptcy. Despite inheriting the worst economic crisis in a generation, the President extended unemployment insurance to those hit hardest, providing a lifeline for millions of our nation's families. And, after a decades-long struggle, President Obama signed into law health reform that enhances the security and welfare of every American family.

As Catholics, we believe that every human being is made in the image of God. From this we discern that, individually and as a nation, we share a moral obligation to care for one another. As the President has so passionately affirmed throughout his career: “I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper.” The President has upheld and advanced this principle in many ways, including his support for pregnant women and the Adoption Tax Credit, and his pursuit of immigration reform. We are proud of the President for his opposition to the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, embraced by Republicans in Congress, and heartily endorsed by Mitt Romney. The Republican plan would shred our nation’s compassionate safety net, gutting Medicare, food assistance programs, Head Start, and many other programs—all while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Finally, we endorse the President because he has led with our values abroad, proving that America can lead in the world with both power and principle. The President opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, and as president, he kept his promise to bring the war to a responsible end and is now working to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. He signed the New START treaty—a priority for Catholic bishops around the world—moving us closer to a world with no nuclear weapons.

President Obama understands Catholics and our values, because he understands the importance of an active faith in pursuit of the common good. This has guided him from his work with Catholic churches on the South Side of Chicago through his career as a public servant.

The President is right: This is a make-or-break moment for the middle-class, and it is a make-or-break moment for America. President Obama’s record, his character, and his values make the choice in this election clear. We are proud to stand with the President, and we look forward to joining millions of Catholics in this country in casting our vote for Barack Obama.

Sincerely,
Catholics for Obama National Co-Chairs
_


----------



## auparavant (Sep 18, 2012)

2012 Presidential Candidates in a Lineup:

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Abortion.php


Help me Jesus!  Where is that circus music for the other parties' selections?  Here for your perusing refreshment.


----------



## Blackpearl1993 (Sep 18, 2012)

Shimmie said:


> Here is one of the websites I'm subscribed to:
> 
> *Priests for Life*
> 
> ...


 
First of all, ITA with your post. Well stated. Second, this is the second time you have caused me to make a big 'ol donkey laugh in the middle of the night and this time I woke the hubby. 

Thanks for the laugh, Shimmie!


----------



## CarefreeinChicago (Sep 18, 2012)

What another human being wants to do with their body has no affect on me and my day today life.


----------



## jrae (Sep 18, 2012)

kinchen said:


> What another human being wants to do with their body has no affect on me and my day today life.



As Christians, we have a higher calling.  From John 13:34-35, Jesus said:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Consequently, what someone does to another human being's body should be defended and protected.  Our laws do so (even accidentally killing the unborn child of a pregnant woman is manslaughter); I pray we Christ-followers get our hearts in line by command of this verse.


----------



## MzRhonda (Sep 19, 2012)

jrae said:


> As Christians, we have a higher calling.  From John 13:34-35, Jesus said:
> 
> “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
> 
> Consequently, what someone does to another human being's body should be defended and protected.  Our laws do so (even accidentally killing the unborn child of a pregnant woman is manslaughter); I pray we Christ-followers get our hearts in line by command of this verse.



I'm confused are you saying we should defend and protect the women that are being beat up with these policies men are trying to pass? or are you saying we should defend and protect the unborn child and forget about defending and protecting the women who may be bearing these children?


----------



## jrae (Sep 19, 2012)

MzRhonda said:


> I'm confused are you saying we should defend and protect the women that are being beat up with these policies men are trying to pass? or are you saying we should defend and protect the unborn child and forget about defending and protecting the women who may be bearing these children?



Do you read in that verse that Jesus is asking us to beat someone up?  It's too easy for us to cop out and pick one over the other.  The Jewish leaders tried to trick Jesus up with statements like that, but he always turned it on its head and called us to a higher principle of real love. 

I know that we are capable of loving and protecting both mother and child.  Taking the life of an innocent is not necessarily the best way of protecting the mother and vice versa.  I wonder... wwJd?


----------



## MzRhonda (Sep 19, 2012)

jrae said:


> Do you read in that verse that Jesus is asking us to beat someone up?  It's too easy for us to cop out and pick one over the other.  The Jewish leaders tried to trick Jesus up with statements like that, but he always turned it on its head and called us to a higher principle of real love.
> 
> I know that we are capable of loving and protecting both mother and child.  Taking the life of an innocent is not necessarily the best way of protecting the mother and vice versa.  I wonder... wwJd?



Wwjd? I don't think he would "stone" the woman.

The mother and child will need more than a hug and a pat on the back.


----------



## jrae (Sep 19, 2012)

MzRhonda said:


> Wwjd? I don't think he would "stone" the woman.
> 
> The mother and child will need more than a hug and a pat on the back.



I don't think He would either.  Nor would He suggest that the child be put to death.  The remedies for an unwanted pregnancy don't have to be an either/or proposition.  Surely, we, as a civilized society can offer more creative solutions than death.


----------



## MzRhonda (Sep 20, 2012)

jrae said:


> I don't think He would either.  Nor would He suggest that the child be put to death.  The remedies for an unwanted pregnancy don't have to be an either/or proposition.  Surely, we, as a civilized society can offer more creative solutions than death.



What would be a creative solution? Name just one.

That's the problem (not you ) people don't have the answers or creative solutions for AFTER the child comes. Especially when many of the programs in place now that offer "some" assistance are on the chopping block under a Romney/Ryan presidency.


----------



## Shimmie (Sep 20, 2012)

MzRhonda said:


> What would be a creative solution? Name just one.
> 
> That's the problem (not you ) people don't have the answers or creative solutions for AFTER the child comes. Especially when many of the programs in place now that offer "some" assistance are on the chopping block under a Romney/Ryan presidency.



A creative solution is not taking the life of an innocent baby who did not ask to be conceived.   

How about killing the mother who gets pregnant?   

Oh Wow!  Did I really say that?  How could anyone say such a horrible thing?  Kill the mother?   How drastic; how cruel; how inhuman.   

The same applies to an innocent baby.   The baby's life is no less of a life than the mother's; and it is just as cruel to take a baby's life.  

Let's be real.  God is not accepting 'creative solutions' as an excuse and He's not allowing anyone to blame Romney or Ryan nor is God going to give Obama a free pass.    Not all abortions are the result of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's health/life.   More than 90% of abortions are occurriing because being pregnant and having another child is inconvenient. 

God is not hearing, Jesus wouldn't stone the mother...  He's still hearing the blood of each baby who has been killed, calling unto Him from the ground.  Innocent blood that did not have to be shed.  

All of these excuses for abortions, woman's rights, and whatever is mute in God's ears.   For what people have done is create a womb into slaughter house.   

It's a sickening shame that people care more about saving and preserving the lives of animals and yet will kill a human baby in it's tiny heartbeat.  

God's not hearing the excuses.


----------



## auparavant (Sep 20, 2012)

^^Shocking, but very true.  I also fail to see why we pretend that women do not bring in a separate life into this world despite the gestation host period.  It's still a separate life.  How does a non-human become a human once born?  Where did we go wrong to trick ourselves into believing that what goes on in our womb is up for grabs because we have inconvenienced our lives?  It's nature that life comes from life.


----------



## Shimmie (Sep 20, 2012)

auparavant said:


> ^^Shocking, but very true.  I also fail to see why we pretend that women do not bring in a separate life into this world despite the gestation host period.  It's still a separate life.  How does a non-human become a human once born?  Where did we go wrong to trick ourselves into believing that what goes on in our womb is up for grabs because we have inconvenienced our lives?  It's nature that life comes from life.



It breaks my heart Aupar... it just breaks my heart.   The baby in my siggy is what people are okay with aborting.   What is wrong with their hearts?  These babies are able to feel the death being forced upon them.  

As horrible as rape is and as violent, it's the same violence being forced upon these little babies.   What are people thinking to make this okay?


----------



## Laela (Sep 20, 2012)

Amen..... 

Psalms 139:13
_For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb._




auparavant said:


> ^^Shocking, but very true*.  I also fail to see why we pretend that women do not bring in a separate life into this world despite the gestation host period.  It's still a separate life*.  How does a non-human become a human once born?  Where did we go wrong to trick ourselves into believing that what goes on in our womb is up for grabs because we have inconvenienced our lives?  It's nature that life comes from life.


----------



## jrae (Sep 23, 2012)

MzRhonda said:


> *What would be a creative solution? Name just one.*
> 
> That's the problem (not you ) people don't have the answers or creative solutions for AFTER the child comes. Especially when many of the programs in place now that offer "some" assistance are on the chopping block under a Romney/Ryan presidency.



MzRhonda, really?  Beside the obvious? Adoption! and here's another... there are many organizations and churches that take expectant mothers in and help them deal with their crisis.  Not much press for those solutions because, as a society, we're not willing to admit that we're making excuses to justify what we want to do.

Naomi Wolf, a liberal, prof-choice feminist leader/author, says pro-choice women should just be honest and admit that what is growing inside the woman is a human life, to kill it is therefore murder, but "we" just want the freedom to do so.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf

Albeit horrifying to me, her admission is honest.  Debating "what a woman does with her body" is a red herring.


----------



## auparavant (Oct 12, 2012)

Well....flip-flop...which is what many, if not most, of us already knew.  Ryan was gonna do a flip-flop on the issue of preserving life.  And the catholic church has condemned his position!


----------



## auparavant (Oct 12, 2012)

You cannot have it both ways....aside from the life of the mother, Ryan wants other restrictions/exceptions on the abortion issue i.e. rape/incest...same THING!  No religious institution or organization has to pay for abortion/birth control via their insurance plans.  What on earth is the difference then??  Mealy-mouthed!

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/all-our-shoulders


On All of Our Shoulders
Michael Sean Winters  |  Oct. 10, 2012 Distinctly Catholic

A diverse groups of theologians and academics have penned a statement in advance of tomorrow night’s vice presidential debate that squarely, coherently, and, I think, decisively makes the case that Congressman Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand, libertarian sensibilities, and the policies that flow from them, are incompatible with Catholic social teaching. You can find the full statement “On All of Our Shoulders” by clicking here.             

The title of the statement “On All of Our Shoulders” is an obvious reference to Ms. Rand’s famous book “Atlas Shrugged.” Atlas, you will recall, carried the world on his shoulders and the Catholic theologians who drafted this statement wish to suggest that all of us, as a group, are responsible for carrying the world on our shoulders. They are, in short, giving life and breath to the magnificent opening words of the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.”                                                                                                         

The statement speaks for itself, rich in quotations from recent papal encyclicals, especially Pope Benedict’s magnificent Caritas in Veritate. To anyone who buys into the line that Pope Benedict’s papacy has been primarily concerned to rollback the reforms of Vatican II, that encyclical stands as only the most obvious piece of evidence to rebut the charge. The statement has several quotes from that encyclical, including this longish one which the signatories correctly note sounds as if it was designed specifically to challenge the Ryan budget:

From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare…are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today's profoundly changed environment….[T]he market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses…. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks.

Here, it seems plain enough, Benedict is squarely confronting the market-crazed world in which we live and which Rand and her libertarian allies have been at pains to create.

The statement also calls out those Catholic writers – I am reluctant to use the word “thinker” in this context – who have repeatedly cited a solitary paragraph from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Centesimus Annus, in which he warned against the excesses of the social assistance state, as if that one paragraph up-ended decades of Catholic social teaching. It did not. It noted, rightly, that there can be excesses, as there can in any human endeavor. But Pope John Paul II did not condemn the social assistance state, he warned against its excesses. Certainly, in the years since that encyclical was published in 1991, we have seen interesting ways that the social assistance state has changed here in the U.S., most obviously with President George W. Bush’s creation of the Faith-Based Office at the White House, an Office that President Obama has kept and strengthened. That Office has been at the center of efforts to involve civil society in the implementation of social programs, including the Church’s ministries, providing them funding and also guaranteeing their religious autonomy and institutional integrity.

It should be remembered that certain conservative thinkers such as Marvin Olasky, who played a part in generating the ideas and discussions that led to the creation of the Faith-Based Office, ended up criticizing President Bush’s effort because it did not rollback government involvement and funding as they had desired. Olasky and some libertarians were primarily interested in scuttling the social assistance state, not creating the kind of governmental and social cooperation that had previously been hampered by erroneous notions of a too-strict separationism regarding Church and State. And, among they reasons that Bush did not follow Olasky’s libertarian impulses is because other thinkers steeped in Catholic ideas about subsidiarity and the related Calvinist idea of “sphere sovereignty” won the debate within the Bush White House, arguing that the object of the Faith-Based Office was not to rollback the government’s responsibility for the common good, but to actually fulfill that responsibility in a manner that was both more effective and better for society by engaging intermediate social actors like churches in the effort to achieve the common good.

I have said before that I can understand why a Catholic would think that the issue of abortion is so important, they must hold their nose about the GOP’s economic policies when they vote for a pro-life Republican candidate. I can also understand why a Catholic can conclude that Roe is not going anywhere no matter who wins the election, and so they will hold their nose about the Democrats’ commitment to Roe even while voting for that party because of its positions on other issues. But, what I cannot understand, and what does real harm to the Church, is when Democratic Catholics make light of the issue of abortion, or try to misrepresent the Church’s clear teaching on life issues. Nor can I abide those Republican Catholics who have been attempting to provide Catholic cover for the Ryan budget. The statement quotes the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” on precisely this point: “Our participation should transform the party to which we belong.”  

I will note one last thing about this statement: the signatories. Any effort to dismiss this statement as the work of quasi-heretical leftie theologians, doubtlessly working in cahoots with the Obama campaign, is belied by the diversity of the list of signers. Charles Camosy of Fordham is not a leftie theologian by any stretch of the imagination. Dana Dillon of Providence College is not a flaming liberal, in fact, she is not a liberal, flaming or otherwise. I could go on. There are some left-of-center theologians on the list, and some right-of-center theologians on the list. But, what matters is that the ideas they are defending are not left-of-center or right-of-center, they are Catholic ideas. Ms. Rand, and her acolyte Mr. Ryan, have met their match in this wonderful statement.  
This story appeared in the print issue.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 12, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Well....flip-flop...which is what many, if not most, of us already knew.  Ryan was gonna do a flip-flop on the issue of preserving life.  And the catholic church has condemned his position!



auparavant...

Aurpar... I didn't watch the debate.  Can you share what he did.  I'm not surprised to hear Ryan lied.  You already know where I stand.  

And thanks for sharing.


----------



## auparavant (Oct 12, 2012)

@Shimmie

Brace yourself...he basically agrees with Biden's view...

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/11/162754053/transcript-biden-ryan-vice-presidential-debate

MS. RADDATZ: I want to move on, and I want to return home for these last few questions. This debate is indeed historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time on a stage such as this, and I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And please, this is such an emotional issue for so many —

REP. RYAN: Sure.

MS. RADDATZ: — people in this country. Please talk personally about this if you could. Congressman Ryan.

*REP. RYAN: *I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, about how to make sure that people have a chance in life.

Now, you want to ask basically why I'm pro-life? It's not simply because of my Catholic faith. That's a factor, of course, but it's also because of reason and science. You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, "Bean." (Chuckles.)

*Now, I believe that life begins at conception.*

*That's why — those are the reasons why I'm pro-life*.

Now, I understand this is a difficult issue. And *I respect people who don't agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.*

What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through *"Obamacare"* with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. *Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious — religious liberties.*

And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they want it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in "Obamacare," taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn't second- guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

*VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN*: My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. *Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can't take care of themselves, people who need help.
* 
*With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
* 
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I'm not going to interfere with that.

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy — any hospital — none has to either refer contraception. None has to pay for contraception. None has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.

Now, with regard to the way in which the — we differ, my friend says that he — well, I guess he accepts Governor Romney's position now, because in the past he has argued that there was — there's rape and forcible rape. He's argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: All I'm saying is if you believe that life begins at conception, that therefore doesn't change the definition of life. That's a principle. *The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. Now, I've got to take issue with the Catholic Church and religious liberty.*

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: You have, on the issue of Catholic social doctrine, taken issue.

REP. RYAN: If they — if they agree with you, then why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It's a distinction without a difference.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

MS. RADDATZ: I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?

*.REP. RYAN: We don't think that unelected judges should make this  decision; that people, through their elected representatives and  reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should  make this determination*

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That's how close Roe v. Wade is.

Just ask yourself: With Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint? Do you think he's likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw Planned — excuse me — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.

I guarantee you that will not happen. We picked two people. We picked people who are open-minded. They've been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court —

REP. RYAN: Was there a litmus test on them?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind, did not come with an agenda.


----------



## auparavant (Oct 12, 2012)

Sorry this is long, but these are fatal "flaws" in their original position of the unacceptability of abortion.  Now they are for it for rape and incest?  What's the difference?  The Church only sanctions it if the life of the mother is in danger.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 12, 2012)

auparavant said:


> @Shimmie
> 
> Brace yourself...he basically agrees with Biden's view...
> 
> ...



First of all, 'Thanks Aupar...'  :Rose

This here is a _grabber_... I mean, both of these men are dangerous... 

_*MS. RADDATZ: I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?*.

REP. RYAN: We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination

*VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees.   That's how close Roe v. Wade is.*

*Just ask yourself: With Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint?*   Do you think he's likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw Planned — excuse me — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.

I guarantee you that will not happen. We picked two people. We picked people who are open-minded. They've been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court —

REP. RYAN: Was there a litmus test on them?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: *There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind, did not come with an agenda.* _

God have mercy on this country.   Please have mercy.   

How did these leaders get into the front line?    God is not in either of the candidates for office.    It's as if God is saying to this country, this is what you ended up with... not my choosing, yours...not mine, sayeth the Lord.   You wanted sin, without conviction, well here it is, totally.   

  


Thanks again for sharing this, Aupar...


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 12, 2012)

auparavant said:


> Sorry this is long, but these are fatal "flaws" in their original position of the unacceptability of abortion.  Now they are for it for rape and incest?  What's the difference?  The Church only sanctions it if the life of the mother is in danger.



Politics... nothing by polictics.   They are attempting the smooth the edges to gain more votes from those on the middle ground.


----------



## auparavant (Oct 18, 2012)

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te.../seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm

Seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching


The Church's social teaching is a rich treasure of wisdom about building a just society and living lives of holiness amidst the challenges of modern society. Modern Catholic social teaching has been articulated through a tradition of papal, conciliar, and episcopal documents. The depth and richness of this tradition can be understood best through a direct reading of these documents. In these brief reflections, we highlight several of the key themes that are at the heart of our Catholic social tradition.

Life and Dignity of the Human Person

The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. The intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.
More on Life and Dignity of the Human Person

Call to Family, Community, and Participation

The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our society -- in economics and politics, in law and policy -- directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.
More on Call to Family, Community, and Participation

Rights and Responsibilities

The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.
More on Rights and Responsibilities

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.
More on Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in Gods creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.
More on Dignity of Work and Rights of Workers

Solidarity

We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers and sisters keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that if you want peace, work for justice.1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.
More on Solidarity

Care for God's Creation

We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of Gods creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
More on Care for God's Creation

This summary should only be a starting point for those interested in Catholic social teaching. A full understanding can only be achieved by reading the papal, conciliar, and episcopal documents that make up this rich tradition. For a copy of the complete text of Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions (No. 5-281) and other social teaching documents, call 800-235-8722.


Copyright 2005, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.

Publication No. 5-315
USCCB Communications
Washington, D.C.
ISBN 1-57455-315-1

1 Paul VI, For the Celebration of the Day Of Peace. . . (Rome: January 1, 1972).

Text is drawn from Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions (Washington, DC: USCCB, 1998) and Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2003).


----------



## JaneBond007 (Jul 18, 2013)

Catholic colleges call on catholic members of congress to pass immigration reform towards path to citizenship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-col...ress--pass-immigration-reform--191440814.html

Liz Goodwin

The presidents of 93 Catholic colleges and universities are calling on Catholic members of the House of Representatives to pass immigration reform that would put most of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country on a path to citizenship.

“Catholic teaching values the human dignity and worth of all immigrants, regardless of legal status,” the Catholic leaders say in a letter sent to all 163 Catholic member of Congress, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner. “We remind you that no human being made in the image of God is illegal.”

The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last month but, so far, the Republican-controlled House has not touched it.

The presidents represent 290,000 students at Catholic colleges and universities. They noted that 10 percent of House and Senate members graduated from Jesuit colleges.

“One thing immigrants do for the American Catholic Church is they enrich the church,” said John Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America. “They’re keeping the Catholic Church fresh and the churches full. More and more they're the backbone of parish life.”

“It would be a failure if we miss the opportunity to make the nation more welcoming,” said Father John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame.

Garvey joked that the only way to influence members of Congress to vote for the legislation would be “revoking their degrees.” He said that “apart from that we don't have a lot of authority over them” and acknowledged that presidents' advocacy might not sway representatives opposed to the bill. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has also backed reform legislation.

Religious leaders from some evangelical churches — including conservatives such as Liberty University Law School Dean Mat Staver — have joined their Catholic colleagues in advocating for reform. Evangelical and Catholic churches are increasingly filled with immigrants and their children, and Christian doctrine commands followers to “welcome the stranger,” these leaders argue. It remains to be seen if they can mobilize their followers — about half of Americans self identify as Catholic or evangelical — to pressure lawmakers to pass reform.

Some lawmakers have objected to the Christian argument for reform. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has argued that the immigration reform boosters play “fast and loose” with Scripture, which frequently emphasizes the importance of following the law.

Garvey addressed these concerns on a conference call with reporters. He said that even though unauthorized immigrants have broken civil immigration laws, they do not deserve to be punished their whole lives.

“We don't pursue people for all of their lives for something they may have done to find a better life for their families,” Garvey said. “At some point we have to let those transgressions go in our search for working things out.”


----------

