The Apocalypse - Letter by Letter: Montana Catholic Bishops Will Not Support Constitutional Amendment Defining Personhood
The Apocalypse - Letter by Letter
Blog to discuss the book "The Apocalypse - Letter by Letter: A Literary Analysis of the Book of Revelation" and current events that point to the events described therein.
My note: I kept reading this article to find the explanation, the rationale for the Bishops taking a stand against a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the Catholic teaching that life (personhood in the law) begins at conception. It never came. Instead I found Judy Brown's condemnation of the Bishops' position. Have we reached the time that we can now trust the voice of an activist over that of the supposed shepherds of the Church? I have read and re-read the Bible and not once did I find anything from the mouth of Christ or his servants the prophets to indicate that political pragmatism was a value. These Bishops, the same ones who shuttled child abusers around and then exempted themselves from the corrective measures, will be easy prey for The False Prophet when he comes. They await him with anticipation no doubt. Montana Catholic Bishops Will Not Support Constitutional Amendment Defining Personhood
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
BILLINGS, March 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a statement issued last week, Montana bishops Michael W. Warfel and George Leo Thomas said the Montana Catholic Conference will not endorse Constitutional Initiative 100 (the Montana Personhood Amendment) that would establish conception as the beginning of life by placing a personhood amendment on the state's 2008 ballot.
Moe Wosepka, executive director of the Montana Catholic Conference said that although "the bishops agonized over this decision for several months, and did not take this decision lightly," they determined that even if voters approved it, the ballot initiative would be ineffectual. The bishops' official statement said they were "disallowing support for CI-100 in our parishes and church sponsored organizations, be it through endorsement, financial support, signature gathering, or distribution of promotional materials," though individuals were free to give their support to the initiative.
Note: Sounds like the Bishops are "personally opposed but pro-choice" on the issue.
The statement went on to explain that while the bishops praised the intention of CI-100 for eliminating abortion, the initiative was not "the most beneficial venue to pursue necessary change."
Note: OK, fair enough.. THEN WHAT'S YOUR IDEA? Let's hear it.
"We are currently working to develop a broad-based coalition to examine alternatives that offer a more realistic approach to the protection of human life," the statement said. "We, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain dedicated to the protection of life from conception to natural death."
Note; The letter from Jesus to the Bishop of Laodicea comes to mind here, something about vomiting the lukewarm out of His body, the Church.
The amendment is sponsored by Rep. Rick Jore, a Constitution Party member for Ronan, MT, who explained that "while CI-100 merely defines 'person' as used in the Montana Constitution, it gets right to the heart of the abortion debate. The fact that human life begins at conception is the only sure foundation of the pro-life argument. We cannot, we must not, buy into the notion that human life begins at some arbitrary time that seems convenient to us."
A report in the Great Falls Tribune said Jonathan Martin, chairman of the Constitution Party of Montana and one of the main proponents of CI-100, was "saddened" by the bishops' unwillingness to support the CI-100 campaign. "I think far too often today that we make decisions based on pragmatism rather than right and wrong," he said.
Martin continued, "This initiative creates no laws, it legislates nothing, it outlaws nothing. It establishes a constitutional principle, and that is recognizing the personhood of the unborn child. If it gets the necessary signatures (to qualify for the ballot) and is approved by the voters of Montana, it will then be up to the Legislature to sit down and reason out legislation to implement."
According to an article in the Bozeman Chronicle, Montana Right to Life Coalition Director Greg Trude said his group is not supporting nor endorsing the measure. Mr. Trude was not available to comment on the statement.
The Montana bishops' statement follows on the heals of similar statements from Bishops' Conferences in Colorado and Georgia, where requests for support for personhood amendment proposals were rejected.
Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory and Bishop J. Kevin Boland of Savannah said in a Jan. 8 statement that the proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would establish the rights of personhood for embryos from the moment of conception "does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia," although the bishops said they have "admiration and respect for those who have crafted this legislation."
In Colorado, Catholic Conference Executive Director Jennifer Kraska said that the bishops "commend the goal of this effort to end abortion, and individual Catholics may choose to work for its passage. At the same time, we recognize that other people committed to the sanctity of life have raised serious questions about this specific amendment's timing and content."
"It's a political, gutless position," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, in a report by the Denver Post. "As a Catholic, it's the most scandalous thing I've ever heard. I can't believe that any bishop wouldn't want to be out in the front lines helping the petitioners. The sanctity of life is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church."
You may contact Montana Catholic Conference Executive Director, Moe Wosepka at: director@montanacc.org.
Mr Paul: Thanks for the note. I appreciate your questions, and hope I can provide some clarity to what the Bishops said. First of all, this is a very complicated issue. The Bishops spent several months reviewing documents, talking to legal experts and consulting with other Bishops and pro-life leaders. These initiatives are being presented in a few other states at the present and we expect they will be introduced in others very soon, so there are those who have more experience with them than we had at the time. This is an important issue, and the Bishops did not take it lightly.
The Bishops have considered the question of "If this moves us one step closer to abolishing abortion, why would we not support it" That's an excellent question. If the Bishops thought this amendment would move us one step closer they would have supported the initiative. If they thought it would stop one abortion, even one abortion, they would have supported it. The problem is the language is so broad that it cannot possibly do what it is intended to do, to stop abortion.
If it passes, the courts would most likely strike it down due to the overly broad language of the initiative.
The other option is it may pass and be upheld by the courts. That may be an even more difficult position to be in because to quote the supporters of the initiative, "it creates no laws, it legislates nothing, it establishes a constitutional principle." They tell us "it merely defines person in the constitution and the details will be decided by the next legislature." I have copied the initiative below. Subsection 4 (highlighted in blue) says the legislature must define each of these subsections (1, 2 and 3). So we pass an initiative that is void of detail, and we trust a legislature to define what each of the subsections means. The legislature defines what the moment of conception is. What it means. We have no way of knowing at this date who will be in the next legislative session, but we trust them to define what the initiative means. Then the courts will then be asked to weigh in, because there will certainly be a challenge.
This is another concern of the Bishops. An initiative of this importance should be very carefully defined before we vote on it, and not left to an unknown group (our newly elected legislature) to determine what it was that we approved. Depending on the makeup of the next legislature, we could be worse off than before.
The Bishops have recommended other alternatives, some of those we have been working on since the last legislative session. They are listed in the attached statement. Each of these efforts has a very clear and achievable goal. They have been very carefully crafted and we are confident we have addressed any and all consequences. CI-100 on the other hand has too many unanswered questions which should be addressed before the initiative is voted upon.
Because of the uncertainty of CI-100 the Bishops don't think it will stop even one abortion. They suggest the best approach is to work together to pass those efforts that will move us in the right direction by reducing the number of abortions in the state.
Thanks again for your email. I have attached the Bishops statement, and an additional paper which has some reflections on CI-100 and the some of the thoughts that went into the final decision. thanks and God Bless Moe
