www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Priests for Life Conference Call - November 5th

Well, the Orthodox Christians for Life do march together, I believe. But if we want to have Eastern Catholics for Life march together, I'm sure we could find a number of EC clergy willing to participate (beginning with myself).

I like the idea of a banner.

Fr. Deacon Daniel

You could Google Deacons for Life. They are the Deaconate version of Priests for Life.

__

Deacon Randall,

PFL doesn't make candidate or party endorsements.

I never stated that Priests for Life made an endorsement. I made several references to the various Pro-Life groups stating that several of them, including Priests for Life, noted that he was the best Pro-Lifer among the major candidates (closest to our values). I also noted clearly that he was not perfect.

While I respect the need to respond by PFL, I think at this point it is somewhat presumptive until we know a fuller extent of Obama's cabinet and legislative intentions, and THEN unify for an appropriate and reasoned response based on specific policy/personal dynamics.

Another thread, now closed, suggested consideration of a "Catholic Party". I think this should be a bigger and wider thing (I refrain from using "inclusive" as it has too many negative connotations anymore) - A "Life Party".

There are far more than Catholics who fervently believe in the sanctity of life. I even have a friend who is (literally) a pagan, a pantheist, who is a true pacifist and believes all taking of life unnecessarily is wrong. He and his wife usually are always at our pro-life rallies - much more often than many Catholics we know. It could even be looked at in terms of Christian ministry without polemics from an incarnational aspect.

I did not attend to the conference call so don't know the details. I think, however, given President-Elect Obama's promises during the campaign (to repel the Mexico City Policy prohibiting the funding of abortions internationally, repealing the federal laws against infanticide (partial-birth abortion), and signing the misnamed "Freedom of Choice Act") it is appropriate to think he was serious in these promises and will work towards them (even if they are not at the top of his list of things to do).

I agree very much with Diak's second point. I think one must also be pragmatic. A Pro-Life party and/or a Catholic Party would only amount to a Third Party without much chances of success for a generation or more. And Diak is correct that there are plenty of people who are Pro-Life. It seems to me that the way forward is to infuse Pro-Life candidates into most major parties. If people of good will on this issue would refuse to vote for pro-abortion candidates at all levels of government then soon the normal attrition of people from politics would leave plenty of Pro-Life choices to rise to the top ranks of both major parties. But getting to people to vote only for Pro-Life candidates involves a lot of education. This election seems to be showing once again that people vote for what they think is in the best interests of their pocketbook (at least according the promises made). Getting them to vote on moral principles is going to be a challenge.

My friend was at the abortion clinic this week, she is faithful to be there and pray two days a week, actually she was arrested - falsley last week - which is now a lawsuit - anyway, the woman that OWNS this abortion clinic was raised Greek Orthodox. Outside her clinic Wed. was a sign that said 'OBAMA NATION - YEAH'

Lord have mercy!!

I disagree. I would posit the pragmatic observation is that the pro-life platform has been an utter failure in both major parties (this election a case in point) for some years. We can go back through the recent past on the rise of compromise candidates in the Republican party - the Spector primary was an important watershed.

Lest anyone think the Republican Party is some kind of pro-life utopia I would posit the Republican Party at this time is even more polarized and divided than any time in recent history, with more and more of its major leadership AND money now leaning away from a solid pro-life platform.

Much time was spent in the press about the candidates courting "independents". Moreso than any past election I can remember. That recognition is indeed increasing.

It would be a long list of party notaries for both major parties who are not concerned with the defense of life (or who are blatantly against it).

The pragmatic view would seem to stop banging your head within a party that at best pandering for your vote as pro-life and at worst does not consider your views to be part of the "party of the future". The turning of the McCain camp on Palin stands loud and clear lest anyone think the Republican Party a panacea for the pro-life movement.

The forming of a party (or simply a bloc) of voters united in the cause of life is needed. The chances are much greater to be heard from without these days than within, and that goes for Democrats or Republicans. If you are going to loose, better to loose on what you really stand for in conscience than to loose (and loose big) having already compromised your conscience just to loose.

Actually, no. And the evidence does not support such a claim. Whether one likes or dislikes the job President Bush has done during the past eight years one can clearly see pro-life accomplishments. Links have been posted to fairly full lists but the most important have been the appointment of judges that respect the original intent of the authors of the Constitution (which would not support Roe).

There are two ways to work towards legal protection for life in the womb. First is a human life amendment. There simply is not the support for such an amendment at the current time (not even the majority of Catholics would support it). The second is to overturn Roe. Overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion (except in some states). But it would put the issue back in the states where debate and discussion might allow protection of some life in the womb (after the third trimester). Then one works incrementally to keep adding protection until abortion is outlawed, with the ultimate goal being a formal constitutional amendment to protect human life.

Regarding the Republican Party, no one has claimed that it is a pro-life utopia (although Diak keeps pretending people are for some reason). It is currently the best vehicle for advancing the pro-life agenda while other vehicles are built.

Ummm…. I’m not sure how Diak could have missed my post recommending that people of all political parties only vote for pro-life candidates at all levels of government (local, state and federal) so that that eventually there are no pro-abortion parties to choose from.

I honestly wish a Right-to-Life Party would develop and become the major party. It is very unlikely in the near future, but I would love to hear ideas on how it can happen. New York State has had one since 1970, when that state legalized abortion. It had run candidates at local and statewide elections since then and has never managed more then a few percentage of the vote – despite a goodly number of pro-lifers in New York.

I think my brother Diak & I will have to agree to disagree on tactics but I am sure we can agree on the need for prayer, fasting and witness for life.