"Rosa's Faith": Catholic Camouflage For The Abomination Of Abortion by Doug Wrenn

"Rosa's Faith": Catholic Camouflage For The Abomination Of Abortion, Courtesy Of The Courant

By Doug Wrenn

October 02, 2007

For quite some time, I, like several others, have considered the so-called reporting of the Hartford Courant "all the news that's fit to stink." Yet the piece written by Washington Bureau Chief, David Lightman on the on-line homepage of Courant.com, "Rosa's Faith, De Lauro Shakes Off her Party's Reluctance To Talk About Religion," was particularly appalling, especially as it appeared on September 30th, just one day before October, or what Catholics consider to be "Respect Life Month."

Lightman's in depth (seven pages printed) feature of Connecticut's 3rd District, radically liberal Congressional Representative portrays poor Rosa as a whiney, innocuous, self-sympathetic, misunderstood, but very devout pro-abortion Catholic who just cannot understand why the so many people scorn her. Before you continue blubbering those crocodile tears into your tissue, Rosa, let me help you out. For starters, at least some of the answer may be found on two web sites.

According to the American Life League at www.all.org, roughly 48 million babies have been aborted thus far since Roe vs. Wade. Before you deny culpability for that mass genocide of our most vulnerable and most innocent, take a look at some of the votes you cast in the Congress, courtesy of On The Issues at www.ontheisues.org:

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines (Jan. 2007)

Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research (which takes human life) (May 2005)

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions (April 2005)

Voted NO to make it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime ((February 2004)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortion except to save the mother's life (October 2003) (Note-Doctors have already stated there is no necessity for partial birth abortion to save the mother's life.)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction and medical research (Feb. 2003)

Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info (Sept. 2002)

Voted NO on banning family planning funding on in US aid abroad (May 2001)

Voted NO on federal crime to harm a fetus while committing other crimes (April 2001)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions (April 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion (Jan. 1999)

Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women (April 2001)

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record (Dec. 2003)

Anybody feeling warm and fuzzy about this "woe is me," "good Catholic" baby-butchering-accomplice/ghoul yet?

De Lauro's putrid and hypocritical rhetoric in Lightman's poorly timed (by either coincidence or design) and atrocious article, is also quite disturbing, and in reading between the lines, classic DeLauro for this rabidly partisan hack, who seldom seems to ever speak in public or from the well of the House of Representatives without taking a swipe at the Republican Party. The gnawing and apparent underlying theme in her statements wreaked of the typical De Lauro camouflage tactics for her warped, socialist and heathen agenda.

DeLauro attacks the Republicans as being the party of the "devout," and Democrats "routinely painted as godless and worse." Close! Barring the liberal, unprincipled, money obsessed "RINO," ("Republican In Name Only") elitist, "blue-blood," "Rockefeller," "country club" Republicans prevalent in the northeast and the west coast, it is generally the Democrat Party and far left liberalism that has deteriorated our culture by ruining the family with increasing the ease of obtaining divorces and contraception, with the legalization of abortion, the attempt to mainstream the clinical perversity of homosexuality, the protection of increased distribution of pornography, including on public library computers, the irreverence of family values, like modesty, chastity fidelity; respecting authority, and the flat out rejection of all previous decent, traditional and societal boundaries and taboos that protected the family, such as chastity until marriage, no births out of wedlock, no cohabitation without marriage, stay at home mothers, etc.. In short, pretty much everything that has eroded our culture since the 1960's has been brought to us by Rosa and her hedonistic, undisciplined flower children disciples of depravity, and we now have the dysfunctional relationships, broken homes, screwed up kids, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, out of control schools, high crime rates, and in general, an overall diminished quality of life to prove it.

Ironically, for all her alleged consternation about Catholicism vs. politics, Rosa did not turn to a member of her own faith for guidance, but rather am Methodist Minister. With all due respect to the Methodist faith, seeking answers on Catholicism from a Methodist Minister is kind of like seeking the answer to a Mathematics problem in an English textbook. Human nature being what it is, it isn't so odd that people in denial will seek answers only from the sources which they feel will tell them what they want to hear.

Rosa is also unsettled because she doesn't understand why she is tagged by some people as a bad Catholic; after all, she co-proposed an initiative to reduce the need for abortions, which appropriated millions of dollars for adoption, family planning and "like-minded programs." Yet for all this sidestepping, Rosa still champions the legalization of abortion. I'm glad DeLauro is a member of Congress, and not a surgeon. With her mindset, a patient would receive a band-aid instead of sutures after the surgery is concluded. This is why people like Tom McLusky, Vice President for Government Affairs at the Family Research Council rightfully accuse her of creating camouflage for the abortion lobby. In the article, Lightman quoted McClusky as saying, "They're trying to co-opt the pro-life issue by inventing new issues." Put into my words, Rosa, you are as phony as a three-dollar bill!

DeLauro also claimed conscience must be stretched and the Church must only guide us and in the end, we must do what we "feel" (emphasis added) is the right thing. Horseradish! What we "feel" is moral relativism. There is as much gray area in right and wrong as there is between Rosa's ears, very little. We are creatures made from God. Actions, such as abortion, which flagrantly deviates from God's will as we are taught via the catechism, scriptures, the Ten Commandments, etc are intrinsically evil. What would a good parent do if his or her child at the supper table (back when that used to actually be a focal and integral meeting point for the family instead of being just a piece of furniture, as it is today) asked for ice cream instead of vegetables because the child did not feel like eating his or her vegetables? This entire liberal mindset, embraced and promulgated predominantly by secularist Democrats of obsessing over feeling instead of right and wrong is precisely why we have lost our way as a culture. When the boundaries are all gone, we just do as we feel like doing, and usually to our detriment. There is nothing necessarily always noble about what we feel. Acting on feeling instead of a moral compass and common sense is not liberty; it's license, and in the case of abortion, it's "license" to kill, X 48 million babies and still counting.

DeLauro also rants on about her being a "fierce advocate" for the poor and middle class. Her socialist tax and spend record, also displayed on "On The Issues" says otherwise. In fact, she has further hurt the middle class. As far as what DeLauro would term "social justice" for the poor, that is not a function of our federal government, as articulated by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which lists the only 20 or so powers which the Congress has, and which DeLauro has spent a career defying. The 10th Amendment further states that functions not listed in the US Constitution then become a state function. Furthermore, I agree with libertarian author and columnist, P.J. O'Rourke, who once sagely noted that no individual has a right to receive charity, but every individual has a duty to somehow contribute to charity. In other words, charity is realistically the duty of people, not of governments. Addressing poverty is primarily the obligation of the impoverished person, followed then by family, friends, churches and charitable organizations, and lastly, and only when absolutely necessary, then by state and local governments. Perhaps if Rosa DeLauro knew more about both her country's Constitution and her faith's Canon Law and catechism, she wouldn't have to be crying those crocodile tears into her beer.

Despite voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in 1996, Rosa claims that she favors civil unions, which she calls her "prudential judgment." What a shame. She had it right the first time, and in the latter case, there was nothing even remotely "prudent" about her judgment, just more moral relativism. If DeLauro were the commissioner of the NFL, not a football field in the country would have lines or numbers on it.

She also claims that Democrats are "squeamish" about what she calls a "public marriage of religion and politics," and that there is reluctance in the northeast especially, to talk about religion. No, you had it right the first time, Rosa, many of you Democrats are simply "Godless," by choice. When Republicans even mention faith, you and your secular Democrat minions pounce all over them and cry 1st Amendment violations, and then you proceed to call us "right wing, religious fanatics." It is your crowd that rejects prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments being posted in courthouses, Nativity scenes on town greens at Christmas, etc.. The only reason you see more such "squeamishness" in the northeast is because the northeast is a wacky far left Democrat bastion. The right to freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment only applies to the government's official sanctioning of a state-sponsored religion, such as the 13 colonies originally had with Mother England. All religious speech is free, so long as it does not discriminate against another faith, and as long as government does not mandate a state-sponsored religion, which is why you only see (official) reference to the separation of church and state in a misinterpreted letter written by then President Jefferson, ironically to the Danbury Baptists, and not in the US Constitution, that structured document of which you are apparently so ignorant. Your bastardized idea of faith sadly has an on/off switch, depending upon which way the political winds blow.

DeLauro also whines on about another pro-abortion Democrat crony of hers from the Congress, who was allegedly shocked to see that he was no longer invited to speak on Catholic campuses as long as he supported abortion. Lightman also quotes a member of the inane organization, "Catholics For Choice." What pro-abortion so-called "Catholics" fail to realize is that you cannot simultaneously be both pro-"choice" (their words, not mine) and Catholic. That is like saying you are a libertarian who supports communism; it is an oxymoron. Those who champion abortion, and euthanasia often point fingers at those who justify war, self-defense, and capital punishment. The Catholic Church makes exceptions for the self-defense, war and the death penalty, but none for euthanasia and abortion. In fact, the Church views abortion and euthanasia as far more grave acts, as both take the lives of not just the innocent, but the vulnerable as well.

Lightman also quotes 1st District Congressman John Larson, who claims that no one likes abortion and complains about being "painted" as some one who he is not, yet according to "On The Issues," Larson's pro-abortion record is almost identical to that of DeLauro, including the 100% favorability rating from NARAL. (Somebody please hand me a paintbrush!) The fact is that in the modern day, hijacked, far left Democrat Party, the majority of Democrats are pro-abortion, despite whatever their true feelings may or may not be, because they recognize abortion as both the bread and butter and make or break issue of their base and its support to them. Such is especially true in Connecticut. Even the quintessential turncoat, a once conservative Republican Congressman, turned liberal Republican Governor, John Rowland, once quipped that to be elected to statewide office here one must favor abortion, or so-called "choice." Such lofty core principles make prostitution look downright magnanimous!

Still beating the abortion drum, DeLauro once again brought up the issue of another "cafeteria Catholic," John Kerry, who some said should be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion during his 2004 presidential bid because of his public views favoring and supporting abortion. Later in the Lightman piece, DeLauro further shows her ignorance, and/or audacity by erroneously stating, "You have to understand the church's role is to persuade and push but not to sanction and create the Eucharist as sanction." Oh, really? Says, who, Rosa? Priests have a sacred duty to protect the sanctity of Holy Communion, which Catholics recognize (or should recognize) is in fact, the body of Christ, which cannot be consumed into a body with a soul corrupted by mortal or "grave" sin, and in particular, unrepentant mortal sin. Such would be a sacrilege, and the purity of the Holy Communion must be protected. That is quite different from using the Eucharist as a "sanction." Consider another document that Congresswoman DeLauro is about as familiar with as the US Constitution, namely, Catholic Canon Law, specifically, Book 4, Part 1, Title 3, Article 2, Cannons 915 and 916:

915- "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

916-"A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible."

Excommunication does not just have to occur by official ritual. A person in mortal or "grave" sin (which in a sense, "kills" the soul, leading to separation from God and eternal damnation, or "death," hence the term, "grave") is considered "excommunicated" or "separated" from God. In such a case, a Catholic will be forgiven and his or her soul cleansed once he or she makes a confession to a priest via the sacrament of Reconciliation, but such confession is null and void unless the penitent is truly remorseful for his or her sins and truly intends to try to reform from repeating such sin. The Church also takes a stronger view toward Catholic public officials who publicly support abortion because of the increased and widespread harm such a person can cause by their public advocacy. Thus, barring the penitent receiving sacramental reconciliation with true remorse and intent to reform (with only the exception of grave circumstances, such as being near death and unable to confess but making a sincere prayer of contrition) any priest would be justified in refusing the Eucharist to such Catholic public officials promoting abortion as Rosa DeLauro, John Larson, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, etc…

DeLauro and 48 of her merry bunch of pseudo-Catholic congressional cronies wrote to Washington DC Cardinal Theodore McCarrick over the Kerry controversy, and in doing so, excused themselves from the abortion issue, and cited their good and in some cases, unconstitutional and socialist works. More confusion and denial. If I donate $100 to charity and then rob store for $100, it's not a wash. Instead, I have done a good work and committed a sin; apples and oranges. In 2006, DeLauro and then 55 of her Catholic congressional cronies then came up with a document called a "Catholic Statement of Principles," a diluted and convoluted statement declaring that this misfit bunch seeks the Church's guidance and assistance but that they also reserve their belief in the "primacy of conscience." Later in the article, DeLauro also refers to our society as a "pluralistic society." When you put this all together, it's all still moral relativism and Rosa and her own little delusional court dictating their own rules to the Church and to God as if they are actually so empowered. Hint: There is a sound reason why Moses received "The Ten Commandments" from God, and not "The 10 Suggestions." Try as she may, DeLauro and her sunny day Catholic cronies are as arrogant as they are naïve. Faith is concrete, and we are not the mix masters. Faith is also inclusive. DeLauro manipulates her Catholic faith in such a way as cavalierly ordering a sandwich to her own personal specifications, like the Church is a deli at lunchtime. As a Catholic, I find that offensive. As a citizen of a nation that is, like it or not, genuinely founded on Judeo/Christian principles, I find it utterly reprehensible.

This all boils down to DeLauro, the Democrat Party and their mostly pro-abortion base trying to pull the wool over our eyes so that they can preserve the ongoing practice of an insidiously barbarian act that callously butchers innocent vulnerable life in a way that is definitively evil in any supposedly civilized society, with or without the presence and intervention of religion. Behind those crocodile tears and shallow, synthetic, custom-tailored Catholic platitudes from the Congresswoman of New Haven is simply just another suave and conniving serpent from old Eden, still offering forbidden fruit with deceitful charm, this time, with a Democrat affiliation attached, but also with the same kind of disastrous outcome for any and all who so succumb to the intended illusion.

Doug Wrenn