Chair of DNC believes Catholic teaching is extreme, radical, divisive, dangerous, and destructive

CNSNews.com reports:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is “an extreme and radical step.”

“For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme and radical step,” she said.

Speaking to reporters on a conference call, Wasserman Schultz said that so-called personhood amendments are a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on women.

No, Shultz does not mention the Catholic Church or Catholic teaching. But what she renounces in such strong terms—the belief that human life begins at conception—is a clear, emphatic, and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church:

Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul, the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake." From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1703; cf. 1711)

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. (CCC, par. 2270)

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (Gaudium et spes, 51)

On its part, the Magisterium of the Church offers to human reason in this field too the light of Revelation: the doctrine concerning man taught by the Magisterium contains many elements which throw light on the problems being faced here. From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has "wished for himself " (16) and the spiritual soul of each man is "immediately created" by God; (17) his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves "the creative action of God" (18) and it remains forever in a special relationship with she Creator, who is its sole end.(19) God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum vitae)

Note especially the direct and unwavering language used in the 1987 document, Donum vitae, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the State: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his of her origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard:

a) every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death; b) the rights of the family and of marriage as an institution and, in this area, the child's right to be conceived, brought into the world and brought up by his parents. To each of these two themes it is necessary here to give some further consideration.

In various States certain laws have authorized the direct suppression of innocents: the moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation must accord them, the State is denying the equality of all before the law. When the State does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a State based on law are undermined. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum vitae)

Radical!

Comments

[BHG]

Why yes, Catholic teaching is radical and divisive. Unless I totaly misread scripture, that is something of the point. I believe that is what Jesus alluded to when He said He came to bring a sword. The truth divides...but it is still the truth....

[Carl E. Olson]

BHG: Yep, exactly right, and a point I hoped readers would latch onto. On one hand, Shultz's comments are outrageous; on the other, they should be expected. She at least it taking secular humanist assumptions to their logical end (or at least in that direction), and in doing so has unwittingly hit upon the truth that Judeo-Christian morality (whether expressed in religious words or philosophical terms) is indeed radical and divisive. This morality, rooted on objective and transcendent truth, is also, of course, dangerous and destructive--not to men, women, children, or society, but to the culture of death that trivializes life and mocks the truth about who man is and Who he is made for.

[mark]

"...Wasserman Schultz said that so-called personhood amendments are a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on women."

will we never learn? Remember the evil that always prevails when we allow evil people to define "personhood?"

What about the “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on the 100's of millions of women, ie. beautiful, innocent baby girls, murdered by abortion?

Jesus warned us about these people when He said; "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae!

[Jason]

As I read this article many things sprung to mind that I wanted to add in the comment area but the few comments I have read that have already been posted pretty much covered all of my reactions nicely.

Codifying in human law the one Truth is the noblest and most fruitful application to which human law can aspire. In this case, that means conferring upon the unborn what already exists, their humanity from conception.

And, yes, that is viewed as "radical" which speaks volumes about the decadent nature of our culture.

[Jay]

So, according to the chairwoman of the DNC, to believe that human life begins at conception is "extreme and radical," and a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on women. But opposing laws that grant protections to the life of a baby "accidentally" born alive after a botched abortion (opposition to which is the majority Democrat position, from the President on down), that's just common sense and pro-woman?

The Democrat party has truly become satanic.

[David Wundel]

I believe the chair of the DNC's beliefs are extreme, radical, divisive, dangerous, and destructive - especially to innocent babies and traditional marriage.

[Dan Buckley]

That human life begins at conception is a scientific observation, not an opinion. Perhaps the chair is anti-science, willing to plunge us into some new dark age.

[David Elton]

Always been amazed at the moral blindness of these fanatical abortion supporters. This woman is a horror show . . . .

[Geo]

Ms. Wasserman Schultz has one of the smallest brains and biggest mouths in Congress. Unfortunately, as Chair of the DNC she also wields a large megaphone.

[guesttre]

Spoken like a truly clueless minion of the evil one....then yes, Catholic teachings are dangerous to such. They involve the eternal destiny of their souls and attempt to get them out of their unrealized slavery and its misery.

[Linus]

When you can't say anything nice about a person then just don't say it. So I won't say anything about Debbie. But it should be pointed out that the really radical, dangerous step was taken by the Supreme Court in 1973 when it gave mothers the right to slay their children in the womb. A constitutional amendment denying that right might put an obstical against such parental selfishness but it would certainly be a boon to future children in the womb.

[Sarah M]

Just as abolitionists in America were thought of as being "extreme and radical" for standing firm that slaves were complete human beings with rights and dignity, so are we who stand for the youngest lives labeled. I just wish I could see the day when people like Wasserman Shultz are remembered in the same way as the pro-slavery politicians of yesteryear.

[Jonathan Lankford]

What is worse; someone who has no profession of the Catholic faith, or Catholics, who come to the Sacrament, and wholeheardly advocate abortion and same sex marriage? It was the hypocrites whon Jesus had the most caustic words.

[Catvoter]

As a prolife Catholic convert and Democrat-leaning Independent voter, I must agree with the party's chairwoman. She says the personhood amendment is extreme, and so it is. I think she's concerned, as I am, with certain people imposing their religious values and faith and actions on everyone else. That's just so un-American. This debate is so divisive, there's no way out and no end possible, other than each woman making the best decision for herself. Now, that's so American.

[Gabriel Austin]

Why the hesitation in saying "the Jewish" chairwoman of the DNC? Israel, and contemporary secular Jews are among the greatest supporters of abortion.
Curious in the light of the Shoah.