Report on Catholics in the United States Congress
During the 2004 campaign there was much ado about Catholic public officials and candidates who chose not to adhere to Church teachings on issues which they, as public officials, have opportunities to affect. Much of this attention was due to several different factors. One was the fact that a presidential candidate was a Catholic. Another was the reminder from some bishops of the place Faith should play in the decisions and votes of Catholic public officials (as well as Catholic voters) and the consequences for those Catholics who ignore their Faith when acting (i.e. not receiving the Eucharist). The other factor was the highlighting of all this by Catholic organizations such as Catholic Answers, Priests for Life, Catholic Outreach, and many Catholic publishers and writers. These groups reminded Catholics and all Americans, that some issues are more important and are not negotiable. These are abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), torture, conscience protection, same-sex marriage (SSM). (Though torture and conscience protection were not mentioned as one of the non-negotiables during the election campaign, I am including torture here due to the attention generated by Abu Ghraib, treatment of 'Gitmo' detainees, court cases dealing with 'rendering', Bush administration policy, as well as the clear Catholic teaching against the use of torture. I, and others, see it as a non-negotiable.) What the Church teaches in regards to these universal moral principles applies to all of us, not just Catholics. They are truths that have been taught by the Church for 2,000 years. They are not truths because the Church teaches them, rather they are truths because they are written unto our hearts by our Lord God. The Catholic Church merely reminds us of them. The political responsibilities of Catholics do not end with voting. Catholics in public office continue to affect these issues and their Catholic constituents have many ways to influence and encourage them. Contacting one's representative is easy. You can phone, mail, email, fax, or even visit them.
So, what are Catholic public officials' positions on the seven non-negotiable issues? Just prior to last year's election, Senator Dick Durbin's staff put together a Catholic scorecard on the 24 Catholics then in the U.S. Senate. It graded Catholic senators in the areas of international, domestic, and pro-life issues. It used the USCCB document, Call to Faithful Citizenship, as a guide. The problem with the scorecard, which showed Senator Kerry as the Senate's most "Catholic" senator, was it weighed all the actions of the senators equally. Thus, a vote for the Partial Birth Abortion ban garnered a senator the same amount of points as his or her support for regulation to control media ownership. Still, given this major problem, the scorecard was informative in pointing out how the senators voted on some of the non-negotiables. Two House of Representative members were reported to have been preparing a similar scorecard for House Catholics, but it never materialized.
Picking up on this idea, but wanting to avoid the problems previously addressed, I have put together a report, not really a "scorecard", of the votes and actions of the current 131 Catholic members of the House of Representatives and 25 Catholic members of the U.S. Senate dealing with the six non-negotiable issues. Though other positions and decisions on issues such as the war in Iraq, the death penalty, school vouchers, anti-poverty initiatives, etc. are important to Catholics, this report will not focus on them. This is not an attempt to show which members or which party is more Catholic, rather it is a way to show where these Catholics stand on these issues. Also, by focusing only on the 131 Catholic representatives and 25 Catholic senators I do not want to to give the impression that it is acceptable for non-Catholics to not be held to the same moral principles. Again, the teachings of Jesus Christ as passed on by the Catholic Church are available for all and meant to be followed by all because they are true. My hope and prayer will be, given this information, the Catholic constituents of these Catholics representatives and senators will make efforts to encourage (or if needed, sway) them to defend the innocent and defenseless ones among us and to protect marriage. This presentation also includes additional information such as representatives' and senators' contact information, links to their official and campaign websites, and contact information for the representatives' bishops.
U.S. House of Representatives
I chose 19 actions to point out where these Catholic House members stand in regards to the non-negotiables. Of these 19 actions, 15 were votes, three are co-sponsorship status on legislation, and one was the co-signing of a letter of support. One occurred during the 105th Congress (1997-1998), one occurred during the 106th Congress (1999-2000), one occurred during the 107th Congress (2000-2002), seven occurred during the 108th Congress (2003-2004), and nine have occurred/are occurring now during the 109th Congress. I chose these actions. I based their selection on my own understanding of the House and my own observations of how representatives have been presented opportunities to affect the non-negotiable issues. In my heart and mind they seem the ones which not only give an understanding of where these Catholics stand, but more importantly, these are actions which did, or could very well, make a difference in changing federal law, influencing the debate, and furthering the causes addressing these issues. The representatives' positions on some of these actions make it very clear whether or not they bridge the gap between their Faith and their decisions as lawmakers. And though some of these actions may not have been successful in passage, the attention and national discussion brought about by them, have been important for Catholics in understanding Church teachings on the issues. Given this, Catholic representatives actions, when not adhering to Catholic teachings, can be confusing and disheartening to many Catholics.
Are there other actions dealing with the non-negotiables which could have been examined? I am sure there are. I would gladly consider additions if someone felt strongly enough to suggest some, but for now I will stick with the 19 actions I have chosen.
The actions (with links to further information) are below:
Abortion
- Right To Life Act (H.R. 552, 109th Congress) (Sponsorship status)
- Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, Roll Call No. 530, 108th Congress, 1st Session)
- Abortion in Military Facilities (H.AMDT. 209 to H.R. 1815, Roll Call No. 216, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
- Coercive Abortion/United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (H.AMDT.293 to H.R. 2862, Roll Call No. 266, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
- "Freedom of Choice Act" (H.R. 3719, 108th Congress) (Sponsorship status)
- Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997, Roll Call No. 31, 108th Congress, 2nd Session)
- Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 748, Roll Call No. 144, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
ESCR
- Federal funding of research that destroys human embryos (H.R. 810, Roll Call No. 204, 109th Congress, 1st Session/Veto Override, Roll Call No. 388, 109th Congress, 2nd Session)
- Rep. Degette Letter calling on Pres Bush to revise his ESCR policy and expand funding, April 2004
Human Cloning
- Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534, Roll Call No. 39, 108th Congress, 1st Session)
Marriage
- Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J.Res 88, Roll Call No. 378, 109th Congress, 2nd Session)
- Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313, Roll Call No. 410, 108th Congress, 2nd Session)
Euthanasia
- Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction (H.R. 1003, Roll Call No 75, 105th Congress, 1st Session)
- Pain Relief Promotion Act (H.R. 2260, Roll Call No. 544, 106th Congress, 1st Session)
- For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo (S. 686, Roll Call No. 90, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
Torture
- Reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (H.AMDT.60 to H.R.1268, Roll Call No. 75, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
- On Motion to Instruct Conferees to agree to McCain Amendment, (H.R. 2863, Roll Call No. 630, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
- Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act (H.R. 952, 109th Congress) (Sponsorship status)
Conscience Protection
- Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691, Roll Call No. 412, 107th Congress, 2nd Session)
Actions consistent with Catholic teachings:
Yes vote on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
No vote on Abortion in Military Facilities
No vote on Coercive Abortion/United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Yes vote on Unborn Victims of Violence Act (5)
Yes vote on Child Custody Protection Act
No vote on federal funding of research which destroys human embryos
Yes vote on Human Cloning Prohibition Act
Yes vote on Marriage Protection Amendment (1)
Yes vote on Marriage Protection Act (1)
Yes vote on Pain Relief Promotion Act
Yes vote on For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo (2)
Yes vote on affirming US commitment to UN Convention Against Torture
Yes vote on motion to instruct conferees on torture amendment (6)
Yes vote on Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
Co-sponsoring Right to Life Act (3)
Co-sponsoring Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act (3)
Not co-sponsoring "Freedom of Choice Act" (4)
Not co-signing of Degette letter (4)
Actions not consistent with Catholic teachings:
No vote on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Yes vote on Abortion in Military Facilities
Yes vote on Coercive Abortion/United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
No vote on Unborn Victims of Violence Act (5)
No vote on Child Custody Protection Act
Yes vote on federal funding of research which destroys human embryos
No vote on Human Cloning Prohibition Act
No vote on Marriage Protection Amendment (1)
No vote on Marriage Protection Act (1)
No vote on Pain Relief Promotion Act
No vote on For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo (2)
No vote on motion to instruct conferees on torture amendment (6)
No vote on affirming US commitment to UN Convention Against Torture
No Vote on the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
Co-sponsoring "Freedom of Choice Act" (4)
Co-signing of Degette letter (4)
(1) Given the steps taken by activist judges and local officials in redefining marriage, these actions will protect marriage as the Catholic Church understands it and are consistent with its teachings. A 'No' vote, for whatever reason, will only allow these judges and officials to continue to do as they wish with the institute of marriage. Such inaction does nothing to protect marriage as the Catholic Church calls them to do. It will only further the cause of SSM by strengthening its proponents as they press forward with their redefining of marriage.
(2) Since Terry Schiavo was allowed to die "every person whose life is considered of negligible quality by a court or a legal guardian could be condemned. It [could] become possible that, in this country, if the unwanted and the weak are simply too burdensome to us as individuals, that the right to rid ourselves of inconvient lives will be our courts' guiding principle." (George P. Bush, Dallas Morning News, 14 Mar 05) As someone recently asked, "Who will be next?" This piece of legislation was the one effort at the federal level to stop this from occurring. Given the unique circumstances of this situation, and remarks in 2004 from Pope John Paul II on the obligation to provide basic means of nutrition and hydration to those who are helpless and unable to communicate, it is difficult to imagine why any legislator would vote not have given Terri Schiavo's parents one more opportunity to have this reviewed by the federal judiciary.
(3) Deciding not to co-sponsor this legislation does not clearly indicate where a representative stands on such an issue. Signaling support for such legislation by co-sponsoring it though, is very fitting for any legislator.
(4) Even though not co-sponsoring this piece of legislations or not co-signing this letter does not clearly indicate where a representative stands on such issues, signaling support for such legislation and efforts surely does. And it obviously and blatantly violates Catholic teaching. Given this piece of legislation was never likely to come to a full vote in the GOP-controlled House, not co-sponsoring was an appropriate action for any legislator.
(5) Though this was dealing with a non-abortion threat how a representative voted indicates their thoughts on how we should treat the unborn. Denying the fact that there are two victims does not seem to be the proper moral action for any legislator.
(6) Though not all of the legislators opposed this legislation on the grounds that torture might sometimes be morally permissible or necessary, given an opportunity to reaffirm the United States opposition to the use of torture and chosing to not do so strikes one as not consistent with forming one's decision with their Catholic faith.
U.S. Senate
I chose 17 actions to point out where these Catholic senators stand in regards to the non-negotiables. Of these 17 actions, 10 were votes and 7 are co-sponsorship status on legislation. One occurred during the 104th Congress (1995-1996), one occurred during the 105th Congress (1997-1998), one occurred during the 107th Congress (2000-2002), five occurred during the 108th Congress (2003-2004), and eight have occurred/are occurring during the 109th Congress. Like the actions in the House report I chose these actions. I based their selection on my own understanding of the Senate and my own observations of how senators have been presented opportunities to affect the non-negotiable issues. In my heart and mind they seem the ones which not only give an understanding of where these Catholics stand, but more importantly, these are actions which did, or could very well, make a difference in changing federal law, influencing the debate, and furthering the causes addressing these issues. The senators' positions on some of these actions make it very clear whether or not they bridge the gap between their Faith and their decisions as lawmakers. And though some of these actions may not have been successful in passage, the attention and national discussion brought about by them, have been important for Catholics in understanding Church teachings on the issues. Given this, Catholic senators actions, when not adhering to Catholic teachings, can be confusing and disheartening to many Catholics.
Are there other actions dealing with the non-negotiables which could have been examined? I am sure there are. I would gladly consider additions if someone felt strongly enough to suggest some, but for now I will stick with the 17 actions I have chosen.
The actions (with links to further information) are below:
Abortion
- Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, (S. 3, Roll Call No.402, 108th Congress, 1st Session)
- Abortion in military medical facilities (Murray-Snowe Amendment, Roll Call No. 92, 108th Congress, 1st Session)
- Funding of overseas pro-abortion organizations (S. AMDT. 278, Roll Call No. 83, 109th Congress, 1st Session)
- Harkin Amendment to endorse Roe v. Wade (S. AMDT. 260, Roll Call No. 48, 108th Congress, 1st Session)
- Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997, Roll Call No. 63, 108th Congress, 2nd Session)
- Child Custody Protection Act (S.403, Roll Call No. 216,109th Congress, 2nd Session)
ESCR
- Federal funding of research that destroys human embryos (H.R. 810, Roll Call No. 206, 109th Congress, 2nd Session)
Human Cloning
- Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S.658, 109th Congress) (Sponsorship Status)
Marriage
- Defense of Marriage Act (H.R. 3396, Roll Call No. 280, 104th Congress, 2nd Session)
- Cloture motion on the Federal Marriage Amendment (S.J Res 1, Roll Call No. 163, 109th Congress, 2nd Session)
Euthanasia
- Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act (S. 304, Roll Call No. 44, 105th Congress, 1st Session) - For the relief of the family of Theresa Marie Schiavo (S. 653, 109th Congress, 1st Session) (Sponsorship Status)
- Assisted Suicide Prevention Act (S. 3788, 109th Congress) (Sponsorship Status)
Torture
- Convention Against Torture Implementation Act of 2005 (S. 654, 109th Congress) (Sponsorship Status)
- Relating to persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States Government. (McCain Amendment, Roll Call No. 249, 109th Congress)
Conscience Protection
- Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1983, 109th Congress) (Sponsorship Status)
Actions consistent with Catholic teachings:
Yes vote on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
No vote on Abortion in Military Facilities
No vote on Funding of overseas pro-abortion organizations
No vote on Harkin Amendment to endorse Roe v. Wade
Yes vote on Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Yes vote on Child Custody Protection Act
Yes vote on Defense of Marriage Act
Yes vote on Cloture motion on the Federal Marriage Amendment
Yes vote on Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act
Yes vote on McCain Amendment prohibiting torture
Not co-sponsoring Federal funding of research that destroys human embryos
Co-sponsoring Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (1)
Co-sponsoring Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act (1)
Co-sponsoring For the relief of the family of Theresa Marie Schiavo (1)
Co-sponsoring Assisted Suicide Prevention Act
Co-sponsoring Convention Against Torture Implementation Act of 2005 (1)
Actions inconsistent with Catholic teachings:
No vote on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Yes vote on Abortion in Military Facilities
Yes vote on Funding of overseas pro-abortion organizations
Yes vote on Harkin Amendment to endorse Roe v. Wade
No vote on Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2)
No vote on Child Custody Protection Act
No vote on Defense of Marriage Act
No vote on Cloture motion on the Federal Marriage Amendment (3)
No vote on Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act
No vote on McCain Amendment prohibiting torture
Co-sponsoring Federal funding of research that destroys human embryos
(1) Deciding not to co-sponsor this legislation does not clearly indicate where a representative stands on such an issue. Signaling support for such legislation by co-sponsoring it though, is very fitting for any legislator.
(2) Though this was dealing with a non-abortion threat how a representative voted indicates their thoughts on how we should treat the unborn. Denying the fact that there are two victims does not seem to be the proper moral action for any legislator.
(3) Given the steps taken by activist judges and local officials in redefining marriage, this amendment will protect marriage as the Catholic Church understands it and is consistent with its teachings. A 'No' vote, for whatever reason, will only allow these judges and officials to continue to do as they wish with the institute of marriage. Such inaction does nothing to protect marriage as the Catholic Church calls them to do. It will only further the cause of SSM by strengthening its proponents as they press forward with their redefining of marriage.
Tags: Catholic, Senate, House of Representatives, Congress
posted by David @ 9:52 PM
0 comments
