Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut who has been serving in the House of Representatives since the Sierra Nevadas were a twinkle in the eye of Pangea, explained today that support for abortion is the true expression of his devout Catholicism:
She had company, joining a statement published by “more than 30 Catholic Democrats in the United States House of Representatives.” Here’s the heart of the matter, hinting at full support for abortion on demand (“all or most cases”) during all terms of pregnancy:
There’s a particularly interesting moment in the first paragraph, if you caught it.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church does not agree with Catholic legislators, in the same catechism that apparently says to always obey only your own personal conscience:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of its existence, a human being must be recognized with the rights of a person, among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame had not been hidden from you, when it was being made in secret, intricately worked in the depths of the earth.
2271 Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of all abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchanging. Direct abortion, that is, abortion intended as an end or as a means, is seriously contrary to the moral law:
You will not kill the embryo with abortion and you will not cause the newborn to die.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a serious crime. The Church attributes to this crime against human life the canonical penalty of excommunication. “A person who obtains a complete abortion incurs excommunication automatic decision,” “by the very commission of the crime”, and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. With this the Church does not intend to restrict the scope of mercy, but makes clear the seriousness of the crime committed, the irreparable damage .done to the innocent who is killed, as well as to the parents and to the whole society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and political authority. These human rights do not depend on single people or parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature. and are inherent to the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person was born. Among these fundamental rights it is necessary to mention in this sense the right of every human being to life and physical integrity from moment of conception until death”.
“The moment a positive right deprives a category of human beings of the protection that civil legislation should grant them, the state denies the equality of all before the law. When the state does not put its power in the service of the rights of every citizen, and in particular of the most vulnerable, the very foundations of a rule of law were undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection that must be guaranteed to the unborn from the moment of conception, the law must provide for appropriate criminal sanctions for any deliberate violation of the rights of the child”.
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for and cured, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis it is morally lawful, “if it respects the life and integrity of the human embryo and fetus and is directed to its safeguarding or healing as an individual… It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought . of possibly inducing an abortion, depending on the results: a diagnosis should not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”
By the most remarkable coincidence, however, Catholic Democrats find that their two systems of ideals completely overlap. Catholicism is redistributing income; The Christian faith focuses primarily on economic collectivism, but there is also unrestricted late-term abortion.
My the last post here describes “a cultural context in which all behavior becomes equally meaningless,” and here is a confident expression of Catholic faith like a shopping basket full of whatever you put in it as you walk down the aisles: Jesus says that have a D&C, we promise. Everything is flattened; you can be X and Not X simultaneously, casually believing whatever contradiction works for you this morning.
1.) I am Catholic;
2.) I believe [this thing];
3.) Therefore, Catholicism is situated in the act of believing [this thing].
You are the doctrine. What you believe is the church. If you think your sins are forgiven because you eat ice cream, then your sins are forgiven when you eat ice cream. If not, why would you believe it? For thirtysomething Catholic Democrats, the formal doctrine of their church isn’t even a speed bump. “Don’t do that,” says his church, as they drive down the highway to do just that. In the fast lane.
All culture is consumer culture. Islam is… feel good? Judaism is about… doing what excites you? Catholicism is abortion. The symbol-thing is a shell that contains whatever meaning you pour into it, the devout Catholic third-term abortion. You can consume all the different symbolic shells at once without indigestion, because they are all meaningless. “My Baptist faith blesses the full heat of autoerotic suffocation,” she says, wrapping a belt around her neck.
By the way, the thirty Catholic Democrats explain that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that each person must obey “the true judgment of his [or her] own conscience”.
But here it is whole paragraph:
1790 A human being must always obey the true judgment of his conscience. If he deliberately acted against it, he would condemn himself. However, it can happen that the moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about the acts to be performed or already committed.
They he edited the doctrine of his church to eliminate the possibility of moral error. Please take a moment to imagine my current facial expression.
English 
Español de Venezuela