Baton Rouge, La., Nov 19, 2019 / 10:00 am (CNA).- Pro-lifers are hopeful that the re-election of Democrat John Bel Edwards as Louisiana governor could turn the tide in a party whose leadership has grown increasingly more pro-abortion with each election cycle.
John Bel Edwards was re-elected as governor of Louisiana on Saturday by a 40,000-vote margin, winning more than 51 percent of the state’s vote.
A Catholic, Edwards first ran for the office in 2015 on an explicitly pro-life platform and won more than 56% of the vote. His campaign aired a TV ad revealing that Edwards and his wife, then 20 weeks pregnant with their daughter, had discovered she had spina bifida in utero. They couple faced down encouragement from a doctor to abort their child.
Edwards signed a “heartbeat” bill into law earlier in 2019, banning abortions in the state as soon as a baby’s heartbeat is detected in utero—as early as six weeks gestation–with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Josh Mercer, editor of The Loop at CatholicVote.org, told CNA that Edwards’ signing the heartbeat bill into law proved his pro-life credentials and “made the difference” in what was “a tight race.”
Katrina Jackson (D), an outgoing Louisiana state representative and incoming member of the state senate, said that the “heartbeat” bill landed on Edwards’ desk as the state legislature was departing to focus on the election. Edwards signed it promptly despite widespread opposition.
“What it said when he signed it that quickly without doubt, was that ‘I’m pro-life, and regardless of a campaign, regardless of pushback, regardless of what’s being said, I’m going to stand on that principle,’” Jackson said.
“And do I think it made a difference in this election? I believe it did, because what it said to people is ‘I am who I say I am.’”
Edwards has also tried to link other issues with to his pro-life stance, and make it part of a broader platform.
Earlier this year he cited his administration’s three straight years of record numbers of foster care adoptions. Edwards also oversaw an expansion of Medicaid access in his state for adults making less than 138% of the federal poverty line. In 2018, he appeared with Vatican officials at the Louisiana Summit on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and in 2017 at the opening of a shelter for human trafficking victims in the state.
In December of 2018, he told America magazine that “The idea of not doing the Medicaid expansion, I just couldn’t reconcile that, because I am pro-life. And the pro-life ethos has to mean more than just the abortion issue. [Abortion] is fundamental, and I understand how important it is, but it’s got to go beyond that. The job isn’t over when the baby’s born if you’ve got poor people who need access to health care.”
“He is just the real deal,” Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told CNA of Edwards. “We like to think he’s the future of the Democratic Party.”
On marriage, Edwards in 2015 said that he personally opposed same-sex marriages but that marriage licenses from the state should not be denied same-sex couples, as the Supreme Court had ruled that it was the law of the land.
He issued an executive order in 2016–later overturned in the courts–that established employment protections for state and state contractor employees, on the basis of many categories including sexual orientation and gender identity. The order included a religious exemption for churches and religious organizations.
Despite Edwards’ pro-life stance, questions remain of how a similar Democratic candidate might fare with leaders in the Democratic Party who may say there is no litmus test on abortion, but without the evidence to support such a claim.
At the national level, the Democratic Party has increasingly adopted an absolutist line on abortion in recent years to the alienation of millions of potential voters, say Day and Charlie Camosy, a theology professor at Fordham University.
Edwards’ victory could “jolt” Democratic Party leaders “out of what is just an untenable position” on abortion, Camosy told CNA, calling the current party platform “about as extreme as it could possibly get.”
In 2016, the DNC platform called for the repeal of the Hyde and the Helms Amendments—policies barring taxpayer funding of abortions. President Obama’s 2012 faith outreach campaign director Michael Wear even called the platform “extreme” on abortion.
In 2017, DNC chair Tom Perez stated that “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health.” He subsequently met with Day after she requested a meeting on behalf of pro-life Democrats.
In the 2020 presidential election, Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden reversed his position on the Hyde Amendment this summer after backlash against his decades-long support for the policy. Other candidates have called for taxpayer funding of elective abortions, federal statutory protections of abortion, or have even said that the mother should be able to choose abortion up until the birth of the child.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in September that “there’s room in our party” for pro-life candidates. However, the party’s most pro-life member in the House, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), has faced repeated primary challenges from an openly pro-abortion candidate and seen the chief of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) withdraw her participation in a fundraiser for him earlier this year after pressure from pro-abortion advocates.
The Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) on Monday announced a litmus test on abortion for any party candidates running for a state attorney general office, saying that it “will only endorse candidates who support the right to access abortion.”
“What is it saying about people like John Bel, and like me, and Senator Casey, and all the elected pro-life Democrats across the country, the Democratic voters who are pro-life?” Day asked. “If there’s a litmus test, does it apply to us too? That they don’t want our votes?”
While, according to one study, nearly seven in ten of the party’s voters identify as pro-choice, many voters might still be turned off by more extreme stances on abortion, Day and Camosy said.
Gallup in 2019 reported that 45% of Democrats say abortion should be legal “under certain” conditions, and 14% say it should be illegal in all conditions.
To what extent those “certain” conditions of legality amount to, however, is unclear. Gallup reported that 58% of Americans nationwide would oppose a “heartbeat” bill, such as the one Edwards signed into law.
In 2018, Gallup reported that while 60% of Americans supported legal abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, nearly two-thirds of Americans wanted abortion to be illegal “in the second three months of pregnancy”; that support rose to 81% for illegality in the final three months of pregnancy.
And in advance of the 2020 presidential election, pro-life Democrats in swing states—and even in some heavily-Democratic states—are reportedly disgusted by the party’s extreme support for abortion.
“We have pro-life democrats in New York who are just so upset about the trajectory the party has taken,” Day said. Earlier in 2019, the state’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law that could allow for many late-term abortions even up until the birth of the child.
Even before the law was enacted, New York had one of the highest rates of abortion in the country, Day noted. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the state had the highest rate of abortions per 1,000 women age 15 to 44, in 2014, of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
“What has it done to address that?” Day asked.
A recent New York Times poll showed President Trump level with or beating Democratic frontrunners Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in key swing states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, although he was slightly behind Joe Biden in most of those states. Abortion “has got to be one of the major reasons why,” Camosy said.
In Wisconsin, Camosy said, he knew “without any hesitation at all that there’s a ton of religiously-minded Democrats who are Democrats mostly because they share their views on economics or about a social safety net or about supporting unions in particular, who would identify as pro-life or at least identify as abortion skeptical.”
These voters “in fact are totally turned off by what is in the Democratic Party’s platform.”
Yet for now, some pro-life voters are wary of a party whose leadership has supported abortion access at the top and whose presidential candidates support taxpayer-funded abortions and at least some late-term abortions.
“Catholics long for the day when both parties nationwide try to outdo each other on the pro-life issue, but that day is sadly not here yet,” Mercer said.
[…]
This is a man whose office is to defend and uphold the perennial teachings of the Catholic faith? I am ashamed for my Church.
“I certainly would not write [that] now,”
Well, we’re certainly relieved about that. 🙄
Víctor Manuel Fernández and Jeffrey Epstein walk into a bar … Seriously, there is nothing funny about this story. How can this man remain in such an important role? Perhaps someone can find a compromising photo of him celebrating a Latin Mass.
Maybe Rupnik took his cues from this “literature”?
Possibly. Rupnik and Tucho both embrace a “porno-mysticism” like that of the Dominican brothers Thomas and Marie-Dominique Philippe and their disciples like Jean Vanier. So too McCarrick, Zanchetta, and countless other predators associated with this pontificate.
Amoralist Laetitia is based on this evil philosophy, that sin can sometimes be God’s will, supporting all manner of pastoral heresies – like tolerating concubinage or “blessing” couples in an irregular relationship, etc. The reality of this pontificate is coming into focus.
“Hypocrisy is not protected under the mantle of religion.”
Bernanos, The Impostor 💋
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
One is left to wonder how, why, such a ruling from the Holy See is not appealed to in the present situation. Thank you for citing it.
Another appointee of the Pontiff Francis revealed as being psycho-sexually obsessed, joining the line-up of McCarrick, Grassi, Zanchetta, Hollerich, etc, etc, etc.
These are what Jesus called the “false shepherds.” Thieves…stealing from Christ himself.
At this point it has become terribly sad. Of all the theologians in the world, this is the man Francis wanted at his side, authoring his documents. It will be interesting watching how they try to wiggle through this. But it probably necessarily lays bare and ties together some other actions and aspects of the current Church, Rupnik, after all, can be seen as only putting into action some of this, and, of course, sodomy must not be so bad after all in this light, only men seeking ecstasy. That this book comes to light before us now perhaps is an act not just permitted but willed by heaven. It exposes the roots of thought that must have become widespread over the past century, influencing among other things the widespread homosexuality in the clergy, and the minimizing of the importance of sexual sin in general. At root perhaps is confusing the analogy of spiritual ecstasy experienced by Teresa and others with the most fleshly of bodily experience. What is true by analogy is false and misleading by equivalence. One would think such smart people would know that.
They are not smart. They are cunning and clever and arrogant, but not intellectually gifted. They care nothing for the splendor of truth, which seizes and enlightens the intellects of those who recognize it.
We read: “He also defended that book [!], saying at the time that it was ‘a pastor’s catechesis for teens’ and “not a theology book.”
A very curious remark, even clericalist….Meaning, perhaps, that “at the time” he exempted himself from the requirement (protecting the Church) that he secure an imprimatur and imprimi potest? Or, perhaps, that things “pastoral” are beyond good and evil and are exempt from any higher permission? Or, both? No longer a problem since Fernandez, as Prefect of the DDC, now is in a position to unilaterally invent new clericalist categories and issue permission to himself, both!
As in mythical times—“full blown from the head of Zeus! Fiducia Supplicans! The new Christmas Story! No longer for “teens” only (say what?), but now anybody two-by-two as were welcomed in Noah’s Ark! Very biblical!
Confusion and scandal? What confusion and scandal? Not longer Vincent of Lenins and Cardinal John Henry Newman (“The Development of Christian Doctrine”), butt Alfred E. Newman: “What, me worry?”
A pastoral book for teens BUT NOT a theology book! To do something like that is a equal to grooming vulnerable kids and for many that goes with jail time for a long time! So are we looking at uncle ted 2? What next? Heal me with your mouth 3: prison diaries? These last twelve years I’m sick to death of the whole lot of these south American cowboys!!! Come back JPII and Benedict All is forgiven!
Has the debate over whether a council can remove a pope been settled?
What would stop a future pontificate from declaring this one annulled?
To Harry,
A Council is not superior to the papacy and cannot remove a pope. However, if a pope actually preaches heresy, then (we read) he automatically ceases to be pope. https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-burke-a-pope-who-professes-formal-heresy-would-cease-to-be-pope/
Which explains why moral novelties are only insinuated,implied or enabled, and this by functionaries other than the pope himself. And, floated as pastoral exemptions from the universal moral law, rather than as direct contradictions (thusly, the moral law remains intact on paper and is even reaffirmed, while practice is quarantined to go off on its own).
We end up with parallel universes rather than formal heresy. This is the strategy…the non-penitent makes “decisions” within some allegedly validating context or another (now a finely-drawn “blessing”?), rather than moral “judgments.” And this is why Veritatis Splendor is treated with evasive silence rather than attacked.
St. John Paul II saw all of this coming when he wrote explicitly into the Magisterium, such as this:
“A separation, or even an opposition [!], is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final DECISION [no longer a ‘moral JUDGMENT’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘Thou shalt not….’]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56, caps added).
The citation above from N.D. is not to be ignored.
Life choices have consequences. Time for some thoughtless ecclesiastics to adopt the notion of personal responsibility and absent themselves.
Card Fernández’s book includes a lengthy description of [a 16 yearold girl] kissing and caressing his [Christ’s] body from head to toe as the Blessed Mother stands by and approvingly allows the encounter to take place. This is homoeroticism, virtually identical with the nouveau theology of Fr Rupnik, suggesting a similar role of himself, Rupnik, as Christ within a trinity of fornicators himself and two consecrated sisters he seduced.
San Egidio, a spiritual community calling itself the Rainbow Community has had Card Matteo Zuppi, head of the Italian Episcopal Conference, an LGBT advocate as a prominent member. The community draws youth worldwide engaging in charity for the poor nevertheless presenting a homosexual friendly spirituality. Apparently the intention is to intertwine legitimate spiritual effort with homosexuality. A theology that would find Rupnik’s behavior admissible and explain Pope Francis’ primary focus on the poor. Homosexualization of the Church, as the trajectory of appointments and causes seem is in contradistinction to Christ.
Fr. Peter,
You wrote:
“Card Fernández’s book includes a lengthy description of [a 16 yearold girl] kissing and caressing his [Christ’s] body from head to toe as the Blessed Mother stands by and approvingly allows the encounter to take place,”
Of all the qualified prelates on the planet to choose from to head up the CDF (now DDF), how do you suppose Bergoglio ends up picking someone who has published blasphemous pornography?
Just wondering if you had any thoughts on that.
Thanks
Unfortunately Harry because His Holiness is of like mind. Pope Francis possesses suggestive art, one a naked Christ carrying a naked Judas over his shoulder. A homoerotic caricature that reveals his predilections. Apparently a gift from Archbishop Paglia himself known for homoerotic frescoes who Francis appointed as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Grand Chancellor of the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family. Francis is by all indication attempting to homosexualize the Church.
Harry. Francis’ artifact of a naked Christ carrying a naked Judas over his shoulder as indicated is albeit homoerotic, although it suggests further regarding sin. Judas the betrayer is envisioned as forgiven, a lost sheep who was found. Intellectual homosexuality has at its basis a diminution of all sin in response to their own sinful behavior, that Our Lord is inclined to forgive them. Both figures naked to inculcate homosexual forgiveness in Christ’s saving act.
Thank you for your frank reply. I agree.
So how are we to know in 10 years Tucho won’t say of “Fiducia” “I certainly wouldn’t write that now.” There is a saying — litera scripta manet (the written word remains) — which might be appreciated by the current Curia if it were not on a warpath with Latin. And if we are not to judge THIS work by Tucho or THAT work by Tucho, the question becomes: other than sycophancy, what qualifies him to be DDF Prefect?
Yes, John. The way that Tucho and fellow travelers act and promote their modernistic/liberal ideas, I suspect that if he wrote the book today, he wouldn’t change very much, if anything. Instead, he would loudly, proudly, and repeatedly proclaim that what he has written does not mean what it appears to mean to all those who find fault with it, and that the book is in fact a work of profound spirituality. He would also employ a cadre of pretentious lickspittles to defend his work while accusing all critics of bad faith and/or a lack of understanding needed to appreciate the depth of his statements that provide “deeper and wider orthodoxy” than ever before.
Tucho and his apologists don’t just put lipstick on a pig. They add more make-up to it, dress it up with human clothing, and proclaim it to be the next stage in human evolution.
“That’s why I don’t think it’s a good thing to spread it now,” Fernández said. “In fact, I have not authorized it and it is contrary to my will.”
So the issue isn’t that he wrote a raunchy book, it’s that someone found it after he tried to hide it. Got it.
Can anyone imagine any of his predecessors acting this way?
That he would not write it now is because he was found out!!!!!! Priests are lacizied for lesser things, he has to go!!! The lib theological rubbish has shown it’s bad fruit and it’s hateful to the soul!
Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, Jan. 9
‘ I certianly would not write that now ‘ – thus, bringing joy to heaven of a repentant heart, helping others too to recognize the rightful boundaries between carnality and spiritual realms, esp. if there has been some confusion in same, in efforts to be over enthuastic, even about some of TOB teachings to an extent…
The Cardnl too might have fallen into similar error at the time, thus in compassion wanted to bring ‘ comfort’ to those he might have thought were feeling deprived and now recognising his error to also have come up with better choices ; not familiar with his writings , thus unsure as to what same might be , yet hope that it would be in line with The Passion meditations,such as of offering up of the Holy Face merits on behalf of all, including generations , to help free persons from carnal spirits , to be led to the joy of the holy marriage and the Immaculate conception of parents of bl.Mother …
Those who brought attention to the book now, even if had intended something similar to the act of Canan ? stealing the mystical animal skin garment , mocking the nakedness of Noah … may same bring attention to some similar areas even in The Church as a whole – such as the scene of creation of Adam at the Vatican ; hope those words – ‘ I would not have done that now ‘, be applicable to same too , since Adam was clothed in Light , was not ‘naked ‘ or any images of such nakedness of The Lord anywhere, including in Nativity scene – as though His parents were uncaring enough to leave Him without even a blanket ; good light technology could help in such situations ..
The Holy Face merits to be offered up for many many ..
May this be an occasion for same including for those persons who need same, to live in holy relationships !
Does anyone still doubt we have a very serious homosexual problem among highly ranked people of Francis’s pontificate?
Time to have this man’s head examined
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.” (John 10:10)
Fernandez and Bergoglio are working for the thief.
By Canon Law, if The Ministerial Office Of The Papacy is vacant, you must Call a Council to elect a Pope.
A Cardinal who professes formal heresy ceases to be a Cardinal, having ipso facto separated himself from The One Body Of Christ.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
“Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith”.
McCarrick, Rupnik, Zanchetta, Fernandez – Why do characters like this keep cropping up at the Vatican, and protected by the Pope? What is going on in the Vatican? Have we no bishops or cardinals who will ask this question?
Cardinal Sarah Finally Speaks Out – Mark Lambert, Catholic Herald, Jan. 9.
I read someone say that Fernandez “shares a certain opennes to different ways of seeing things” and that is a total and most direct recipe for a bigger disaster in the Church than we already have. We don’t see in “new ways”, we seek to see through Jesus-God’s eyes of Truth ONLY, which is what True Saints did for 2,000 years and do now. The True Catholicism of the True Jesus is never sentimental or emotional as that kills true love and opens wide doors to “mystical” evil. It is precisely that “certain openness to seeing things in different ways” that the German Bishops have and are pushing ever harder for and that is brazenly and totally Anti-Catholic.
Francis will continue his “openness” to below-the-belt-sins approach. You only use over-delicate, over-mothering approaches of “openness” in order to “correct” only when you want that something you “correct” to grow and totally take over. I believe that Francis and Fernandez orchestrated the finding and release of this latest horrible book for its shock-and-discouragement-just-surrender-to-it value. We must be “closed” inside Jesus Sacred Heart of Truth and never “open” to evil. Always remember, Heaven does have walls, it is not “open” (Apocalypse/Revelation 21:12).
Alfred Hitchcock’s 1953 film “I, Confess” was banned in Ireland – but not the United States – because it had a priest who presumably had committed mortal sins against the Sixth Commandment with a woman BEFORE becoming a priest.
Judging by at least one of his very famous films, to my knowledge Alfred Hitchcock was not a good person.
I haven’t been impressed with the rigor of the rating by the Legion of Decency. It – treacherously? – appears to have let through stealth immorality. Any film which accepted divorce should have gotten a C and not a B. For that matter, the dress allowed was immodest.
It’s been many years since I watched “I, Confess,” but I’m fairly certain that Logan never had any relations with Ruth. For what it’s worth.
I don’t remember that being a part of the plot either.
What a great film that was. It’s my very favorite Hitchcock movie.
Did not Judas betray Jesus…with a kiss…
one duly but sorrowfully noted by Jesus Christ.
I can barely read headlines about these scandalous writings, let alone their context, regardless of their aging.
Hopefully, everyone can now refocus to St. Pope John Paul II’s wonderful writings on the theology of the body.