A gut check for American Catholicism

[Janet_S]

The Republican Party had nearly perfect control over the government.

And they did nothing.

That is why your statement is irrelevant–or rather moot.

We may not be in the age to come, but if they can’t do anything even when presented with power the likes of which we have not seen for the better part of a century, when can we expect them to do something?

Someone tried a football analogy. Let me try a basketball analogy now. It seems that whenever the Republicans get ahead on the scoreboard, they try to run out the clock on moving forward on abortion.

You can’t say they did nothing. If they did nothing, Obama wouldn’t be reversing all the things they did. He wouldn’t be promising Planned Parenthood he would sign FOCA which would revoke dozens of existing state laws that restrict or regulate abortion; he wouldn’t be reversing the Mexico City policy (Reagan and Bush); he wouldn’t be rescinding the HHS conscience protection rules (Bush); he wouldn’t have protested against the partial birth abortion ban (Bush).

Ask Planned Parenthood, who never endorse any pro-life Republicans for elected office, if the Republicans do nothing. They might tell you a different story.

 

[Della]

You can’t say they did nothing. If they did nothing, Obama wouldn’t be reversing all the things they did. He wouldn’t be promising Planned Parenthood he would sign FOCA which would revoke dozens of existing state laws that restrict or regulate abortion; he wouldn’t be reversing the Mexico City policy (Reagan and Bush); he wouldn’t be rescinding the HHS conscience protection rules (Bush); he wouldn’t have protested against the partial birth abortion ban (Bush).

Ask Planned Parenthood, who never endorse any pro-life Republicans for elected office, if the Republicans do nothing. They might tell you a different story.

Thank you Janet S for noting the salient facts here.

And andrewagill, no party is ever fully in control of the government, as Obama is beginning to learn to his cost and our everlasting gratitude. The opposite party is always working against the other, undermining any “gains” the other might make. Politics is a messy, imperfect business. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. The Psalmist was right when he wrote: “Put no trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no hope.” How true that is!

 

[Janet_S]

Thank you Janet S for noting the salient facts here.

And andrewagill, no party is ever fully in control of the government, as Obama is beginning to learn to his cost and our everlasting gratitude. The opposite party is always working against the other, undermining any “gains” the other might make. Politics is a messy, imperfect business. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. The Psalmist was right when he wrote: “Put no trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no hope.” How true that is!

And to add, it is better to do nothing at all about abortion than to increase funding for it and enshrining it as a fundamental human right throughout the world, which the Democrats do every chance they get. So even if the Republicans are doing nothing, that’s still a better choice.

 

[Della]

And to add, it is better to do nothing at all about abortion than to increase funding for it and enshrining it as a fundamental human right throughout the world, which the Democrats do every chance they get. So even if the Republicans are doing nothing, that’s still a better choice.

 

[andrewagill]

You can’t say they did nothing. If they did nothing, Obama wouldn’t be reversing all the things they did. He wouldn’t be promising Planned Parenthood he would sign FOCA which would revoke dozens of existing state laws that restrict or regulate abortion; he wouldn’t be reversing the Mexico City policy (Reagan and Bush); he wouldn’t be rescinding the HHS conscience protection rules (Bush); he wouldn’t have protested against the partial birth abortion ban (Bush).

Ask Planned Parenthood, who never endorse any pro-life Republicans for elected office, if the Republicans do nothing. They might tell you a different story.

Planned Parenthood gets money by claiming that abortion is on the verge of becoming illegal. Would that that were true!

But the Republicans make small concessions about abortion while ushering in new laws expanding torture, unjust war, the death penalty, extraordinary rendition (which I’m pretty sure is an intrinsic evil inasmuch as it is deportation) and against just about any part of the pro-life movement other than abortion.

You would have us vote for a group that is marginally better on one issue but manifestly a horror on the others. Surely, we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate, but why do I never see any condemnation of the Republicans for their support of intrinsic evil?

And andrewagill, no party is ever fully in control of the government

If the Republicans cannot effect change while being the majority party in all branches of government, then we cannot expect them to effect change ever.

If no party is ever fully in control of government, then we must not place our hope in any party.

 

[Janet_S]

Planned Parenthood gets money by claiming that abortion is on the verge of becoming illegal. Would that that were true!

But the Republicans make small concessions about abortion while ushering in new laws expanding torture, unjust war, the death penalty, extraordinary rendition (which I’m pretty sure is an intrinsic evil inasmuch as it is deportation) and against just about any part of the pro-life movement other than abortion.

You would have us vote for a group that is marginally better on one issue but manifestly a horror on the others. Surely, we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate, but why do I never see any condemnation of the Republicans for their support of intrinsic evil?

If you can’t defend the Democrats’ firm resolution to make abortion on demand the law of the land–here and all around the world-- without changing the subject to torture, war, and the death penalty, that’s pretty convincing to me that there is no defense for them.

But since you want to change the subject, historically (and now) the Democrats are not the peace party. And the fact that one Republican administration (Bush’s) used waterboarding on 3 detainees suspected in the 9/11 incident does not amount to all Republicans promoting torture as policy --particularly in proposed health care plans and as conditions for foreign aid. And as far as the death penalty, Obama and many other Democrats are for that too.

There’s no comparison and really no defense for the Democrats regarding their uncompromising pro-abortion policies and their intolerance for the pro-life cause. Except, of course, if you change the subject. . .

 

[CentralFLJames]

The way to outlaw abortion is to make the politicians, esp the Democrats, come to see that every baby aborted is the loss of a new tax payer and voter that could vote Democratic.

I’d be willing to concede letting them assign a default party affiliation to the unborn as “gestating Democrats” if they would pass a law that recognizes children’s right to life and to political representation via proxy of their parents. The argument I’d put forth is that children are citizens too and parents with families should have the right to vote for all the children under their household including those in the womb in a single familial voting block. That makes the unborn become a political asset that can empower politicians (what they really want).

Play into their greed for power and control and we win the abortion problem. Make the unborn a protected class of new voter that has an active voice and abortion would become illegal overnight.

The other way is to play into their revenue streams. Right now the Abortion Industry is a HUGE revenue machine and cash cow for clinics and doctors. We have two approaches here - saddle abortion providers with so much expensive regulatory overhead that to get an abortion requires so many forms and letters and testing and counselling and 2nd opinions etc. that is becomes harder and more expensive to abort a child than it becomes to build a wind-farm electrical generator off Ted Kennedy’s back yard or a nuclear plant anywhere in the USA. The other approach is to put a huge huge national-conscience and national-social-impact tax on abortions. The funds are ostensible to “better educate people” on how to not be promiscuous and to pay for later life psychological counseling that women who abort their children need (to force the politicians make good on their empty promises that “abortions should be rare”). Create a public trust of funds tied to abortions and every one will put their hands out to be providers for state counseling and training programs and it will sail through legislation - then we shift these funds more toward the preventive side of things from a morality training programs - which Churches could teach and be paid for and gain more revenue to fight this problem. This also adds new expenses to the cost of an abortion to make it a difficult option for most of the class of people who are using abortion as a late form of contraception. The second tax is the calculated unit impact to the economy and budgets in losing another tax payer necessary to feed the base of the social security program and reimburse “the people” for the loss of yet another national asset that is needed to keep it viable (its new fledgling in the womb taxpayer) and is working at cross purposes to national policy.

We have to push back against the politicians using the tools they respect - money and clout brokering.

It’s somewhat tongue and cheek - but its high time we changed or tactics and started playing political hard ball. The curb side rosaries are nice but we need to get in the face of politicians now that they are blocking our access to clinics at every opportunity.

James

 

[tm30]

You are right. Facts are facts.

The Republicans have done little more than ``zippy-do-dah’’ to stop abortion as well.

They passed the partial-birth abortion ban (I forgot about that), but that’s about it. How many abortions that actually stopped rather than simply forced to change to other procedures is debatable.

George Bush told people that they could keep molesting the unborn for stem cell research, but if they wanted federal money, they could only keep molesting the ones they had molested before.

I’m not aware of any nationwide law regarding informing women of alternatives.

It is very unlikely that we will ever get a set of circumstances this theoretically favorable to the pro-life movement again.

This is not to say that we should vote for the pro-choice candidate. I just think that we need to try to think less in terms of party and more in terms of people. Promote pro-life Democrats. Put real pressure on Republicans who do not conform to the pro-life message, regardless of whether that is abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, or unjust war.

As to voting for a third party, I would ask how you would have voted in the 1933 election in Germany. The most popular party were the Nazis, the second were the Leninists, and the third were the Communists. I could not have voted for any of those in good conscience. The Centre (Political Catholic) party made up only 11% of the vote.

(is this too off-topic for News? If a moderator wants to move it, I wouldn’t object)

I agree that the GOP is not wielding a very high batting avg. in the abortion debate, but there is a substantive difference in what traditional Republicans believe/do, and what the Democrats (minus the few pro-lifers) do. The Republicans may not have rolled back the tide of abortion, however, that is substantially better than the Democrats, who have worked rather tirelessly to facilitate more and more abortions - not reduce them, as they claim. That’s a wide chasm. If the Republicans have become apathetic, the Democrats have made abortion a sacrament available everywhere and for any reason. Big difference.

Addtionally, say what you will about Bush - I’m not a big fan of his, either, but it would be intellectually dishonest to say that his two Supreme Court picks - Alito and Roberts - weren’t home runs for the pro-life movement. At least in this instance the Roe-divided court is still tightly divided, i.e. 5-4, not 7-2. That can’t go overlooked, so, between the two parties (assuming these are the only choices), the Republican side (for all it’s flaws) is lightyears ahead of the Democrats on the seminal moral issue of abortion.

That said, I whole-heartedly agree that pro-life Democrats should be supported. I find their pro-life support to be even more powerful that Republicans because they are going strongly against the grain of their own party. That’s not to say they are any more pro-life than Republicans, but I think it carries even more weight in that they are willing to alienate themselves from other Democrats by standing on morals.

Sadly, however, the GOP is headed in the same direction, whereby it’s becoming more fashionable to avoid the abortion debate, leaving actively pro-life Republicans at the fringe. The saving grace here is that “pro-life” is still part of the RNC platform. This deterioration of importance to the GOP is a fairly recent development, and one that has picked up steam after Obama’s victory caused various Republican pundits to blame the conservative/right-to-life wing for being too extreme and dragging the party down.

I don’t have a lot of hope for politics and politicians. I was a card-carrying Republican cheerleader for many years, but now I don’t identify with any group. The key is to support individuals who demonstrate a desire to bring the kingdom of God to this earth. They don’t have to wear it on their sleeves, just demonstrate by their actions that they cherish and respect the Natural Law, our constitution, and the defense of Truth. There are very few, if any, that I can identify. We need to pray for good individuals to come forward and serve…

Still, between the Democrats and the Republicans, one side is twiddling their thumbs, and the other is making it easier for the abortionist to do his job and profit handsomely from his handiwork. There is absolutely a qualitative and quantitative difference, even if the Republicans are headed down the same path as the Dems.

 

[tm30]

Personally, sorry to say, I don’t think either party will “overturn abortion”. The procedure has become acceptable and entrenched on Main Street America. With the importance the culture has given to the ‘sexual revolution’, abortion is just one more pragmatic way of dealing with any “inconveniences” this liberation may occasion.

Sadly, I agree. And given the disarray in which we find the political arena, I think the pro-life movement needs to reassess at what level of society the best results can be achieved. As Catholics, I believe we need a two-pronged focus - spiritual combat and public education/conversion of hearts. The spiritual end of it is easy: Rosaries, fasting, almsgiving. The public portion will require better pastoral care (instructing the flock on the intrinsic evil of abortion, the gravity of the Natural Law, and the need to educate our children not only in Catholic schools but in Catholic homes. We need to literally re-program our children to reject what the secular culture tells them is “true” if future generations are going to pick up the torch for Life. My honest assessment is that this is the biggest task at hand - perhaps bigger than overturning Roe v. Wade. Religious practice will continue to decline in this country - especially Catholicism - as even “cultural Catholics” begin to disappear and the younger generations grow up with almost no exposure whatsoever to the sacraments. We will more resemble the secular atheist society of Scandinavia than the country that once had a Catholic church on every few city blocks in major American cities.

For this reason, judicial appointments are crucially important to me when choosing elected officials. Say what you will about Bush, I’d much rather he appoint my justices than Obama.

That being said, perhaps Sotomayor will surprise. There are precedents.

Important point. Sotomayor is pro-abortion, I have no doubt. The degree to which she is, however, is debatable, and our best hope in this situation.

 

[Arandur]

Agreed.

They had a republican white house, and a republican majority from 2001 until 2006. They could have easily done this:

1. Passed a law outlawing abortion AND
2. Taken away jurisdiction from all federal courts for abortion cases.

Done. No judge could touch the federal law, and it would have stood.

Heck, even the Right to Life Act didn’t stand a chance.

Oh? Explain how anyone can pass a law outlawing abortion that wouldn’t run afoul of the SCOTUS RvW argument that abortion is a Constitutional right? It would just be struck down–until we get a SCOTUS that respects that the Constitution protects a right to life, which is exactly what we were on the way to doing with Republican presidents, shifting the balance of the Court in this direction so that such a law outlawing abortion would have been possible! You work against yourself here. Republicans got some proper judges on the Court in preparation for this move. Republicans all around the country kept proposing law after law attempting to limit or outlaw abortion, and these kept being challenged by liberals.

In other words, Republicans DID try to pass laws against abortion and in some cases were successful. They DID implement policies restricting it (such as the Mexico City policy that Obama was quick to overturn). They DID do the extremely important work of keeping challenges to abortion in the public debate.

If you supported liberals and wanted to get rid of the Republicans, then you supported the prevention of all those laws against abortion, you supported the direct advocacy and support of abortion, you supported even eradicating the voice that Republicans gave to the unborn, keeping them in the public debate.

Lest you think that it was not important that we had a political party even willing to advance the rhetoric of the Pro-Life position, consider the shift revealed in public polls recently that a majority of Americans are Pro-Life.

All this nonsense saying that Republicans have done nothing on abortion and that we might as well support the party that actively promotes abortion instead is vile lies and filth and just provides cover for prideful, secularist psuedo-Catholics who care more about their political ideology than for any properly-balanced social morality informed by the Church. Either you’re in that camp, or in the camp that gullibly buys into these lies because of ignorance and an uninformed greater sympathy for various other secular issues than for the essential right to life which must come first.

 

[tm30]

Agreed.

They had a republican white house, and a republican majority from 2001 until 2006. They could have easily done this:

1. Passed a law outlawing abortion AND
2. Taken away jurisdiction from all federal courts for abortion cases.

Done. No judge could touch the federal law, and it would have stood.

Heck, even the Right to Life Act didn’t stand a chance.

Not to make excuses, but you and I know it would have been fillibustered into the grave before it got to the Senate. And the fact of the matter is, I’m sure there are plenty of “pro-life” GOP members who maintain that label mainly for street cred’ and would not have the backbone to vote for such a law. Kinda like “Catholics” who want to be called “Catholic” but don’t intend to actually live as such. The numbers were there, yes, but the numbers were probably an illusion to begin with.

 

[tm30]

Planned Parenthood gets money by claiming that abortion is on the verge of becoming illegal. Would that that were true!

But the Republicans make small concessions about abortion while ushering in new laws expanding torture, unjust war, the death penalty, extraordinary rendition (which I’m pretty sure is an intrinsic evil inasmuch as it is deportation) and against just about any part of the pro-life movement other than abortion.

Uh… I seem to remember the votes were overwhelmingly bi-partisan.

You would have us vote for a group that is marginally better on one issue but manifestly a horror on the others.

You would have us vote for a group that proudly gets it wrong on the paramount issue.

Surely, we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate, but why do I never see any condemnation of the Republicans for their support of intrinsic evil?

War is not intrinsically evil. It many cases it’s justified. The tactics are debatable, but the prosecution of war is not, in and of itself, evil. The O.T. comes to mind.

If no party is ever fully in control of government, then we must not place our hope in any party.

This I agree with.

 

[BobCatholic]

Oh? Explain how anyone can pass a law outlawing abortion that wouldn’t run afoul of the SCOTUS RvW argument that abortion is a Constitutional right? It would just be struck down-

Under the constitution, the Congress has the authority to withhold jurisdiction in federal courts. If the Republican dominated congress yanked such jurisdiction, the law would stand.

Who will strike it down, if the courts would have no jurisdiction over abortion cases?

Doing the right thing CAN be done!

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an unconstitutional grab of private property (Slaves were considered property) and also an unconstitutional violating of private contracts, but it was done nonetheless and not overturned.

We CAN do the right thing and it be upheld.

 

[BobCatholic]

Not to make excuses, but you and I know it would have been fillibustered into the grave before it got to the Senate. And the fact of the matter is, I’m sure there are plenty of “pro-life” GOP members who maintain that label mainly for street cred’ and would not have the backbone to vote for such a law. Kinda like “Catholics” who want to be called “Catholic” but don’t intend to actually live as such. The numbers were there, yes, but the numbers were probably an illusion to begin with.

I’m sure they would have made some compromises, in political reality, to make exceptions for the “big 3” abortion problems (rape, incest, life in danger) - there’s enough Blue Dogs who are pro-life who could have countered the pro-abort RINOS at the time.

So it was politically possible.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The other way to stop abortion and to put a wooden stake into all this secularization of America (which happened because America was basically set up as a Protestant nation which naturally tends toward secularism and anarchy) is to start evangelizing America as a Catholic nation. We let a minority of atheists, homosexuals, heathens and secularists from the new general culture of death make their culture the de facto state religion. It’s time to use our numbers and come right back at them and let God take this country back. We could precipitate a new western culture if Catholicism could regain a foothold in the Americas. Frankly, I think this is Mary’s Plan.

We could do it in 20-30 years if we prayed, fasted, and cleaned house in our Catholic Church and made a plan to do it. The State was never supposed to be divorced from Religion - the law was supposed to mean the state could not impose a particular religion on the populace by compulsion like the Protestant heads of Church did in England and like the French Revolution attempted to do in democratizing The Church and slaughtering the orthodox Catholics.

James

 

[traillius]

Peace and justice will never happen when the social justice bastion is built on the blood soaked sand of a system that will allow millions upon millions of preborn babies to be slaughtered wholesale in their mothers’ wombs. Make no mistake, God hears the cries of these most marginalized and poorest children of God, the scream is not silent to Him. The blood cries out for vengeance and justice. God will sometime deliver. Sadly, when he does, it will be unlike any other suffering that has ever occured.I pray for mercy, because we sorely need it, for this sin is greater than all others.

 

[Nino]

This quote seems particularly relevant here:

The american catholic…sic; is but a wing of the demoncrat party…it is silent on the evils of no win wars…ala bush and obama…silent on the sex scandals in the schools and churches,silent on the latest hate crimes bill which compliments and protects perverts but makes suspect and terrorists of we anti-abortionists,pro-second amendmenters,and vets…it has become a gutless church…silent on the horrible attacks by the deviants in hollyweird with their davinci code nonsense…Americas moral values are being submerged in meaningless pyschobabble,our economy is becoming like other left wing socialist nations…re :nazi germany ,russia etc…work for big brudder …what happened at NDame univ.was a disgrace and not one bishop had the guts or belief to go there in person ,pick up a sign and march for Jesus…just a weak limpwristed moan…sad and scary…

 

[andrewagill]

If you can’t defend the Democrats’ firm resolution to make abortion on demand the law of the land–here and all around the world-- without changing the subject to torture, war, and the death penalty, that’s pretty convincing to me that there is no defense for them.

The subject is ``A gut check for American Catholicism,’’ an article about political ramifications for Caritas in Veritate.

Were the subject abortion, I would agree that this is changing the subject.

The way to outlaw abortion is to make the politicians, esp the Democrats, come to see that every baby aborted is the loss of a new tax payer and voter that could vote Democratic.

No, no, no! This is just what we are called upon to deny.

We are not just bundles of money for the consuming of goods, we are humans that God has created in His own image.

Addtionally, say what you will about Bush - I’m not a big fan of his, either, but it would be intellectually dishonest to say that his two Supreme Court picks - Alito and Roberts - weren’t home runs for the pro-life movement.

Roberts and Alito both support the death penalty. They are not pro-life.

Oh? Explain how anyone can pass a law outlawing abortion that wouldn’t run afoul of the SCOTUS RvW argument that abortion is a Constitutional right? It would just be struck down–until we get a SCOTUS that respects that the Constitution protects a right to life, which is exactly what we were on the way to doing with Republican presidents, shifting the balance of the Court in this direction so that such a law outlawing abortion would have been possible! You work against yourself here. Republicans got some proper judges on the Court in preparation for this move.

Republican appointees have made up a majority of the court since (I believe) 1969. Appointees by Republicans who have made a point of campaigning on a pro-life platform have made up the majority since 1991.

You work against yourself here.

All this nonsense saying that Republicans have done nothing on abortion and that we might as well support the party that actively promotes abortion instead

You would have us vote for a group that proudly gets it wrong on the paramount issue.

No one is saying that. What I am saying is that we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate, but we cannot simply start campaigning for the pro-torture candidate, either.

And yes, those who vote against a bill to limit interrogation techniques to those in the army field manual because it won’t allow torture techniques are pro-torture.

 

[Arandur]

Roberts and Alito both support the death penalty. They are not pro-life.

Do you understand the difference between abortion and the death penalty, as the Church teaches it? Further, judges are called to enforce the laws of the country and the constitution upon which it is based. We are fortunate enough to have a Constitution that SHOULD resoundingly protect the pre-born, and so our strategy necessarily must include the judges that should be upholding that Constitution. The Constitution also permits capital punishment–something that the Church also permits, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances should no longer be necessary in the developed world, but the law of the land still permits it. Here is a case where judges really don’t have much role to play, but the legislators do.

Where the fundamental law is just, we look to our Judicial branch to uphold it, our Executive branch to execute it, and our Legislative branch to preserve or enhance it. Where the fundamental law is unjust or in error in some way, we look for the Legislative branch to correct it, with the Executive and Judicial branches’ roles being primarily to show as much good judgment and mercy as the law allows until the Legislative branch fixes things.

Republican appointees have made up a majority of the court since (I believe) 1969. Appointees by Republicans who have made a point of campaigning on a pro-life platform have made up the majority since 1991.

You work against yourself here.

You were talking about the current state of the parties, so looking back several decades is irrelevant. Yes, the Republicans have made some bad appointments–ones that often seemed okay, but betrayed the principles they claimed to uphold. That does not change the fact that the Republican party, in its more recent opportunities, did the right thing in appointing judges (Robers and Alito) who uphold the Constitution in the most crucial matter of the right to life for the pre-born. This shifted the balance on the SCOTUS, and now Catholics who permitted Obama to be elected have effectively stymied any further shift of the SCOTUS towards protection of pre-born rights for the next 4-8 years. So in the discussion of who is working against whom or who is more culpable than whom for the SCOTUS’s role in abortion, that responsibility now lies in the lap of people who ultimately supported the anti-life party in power.

No one is saying that. What I am saying is that we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate, but we cannot simply start campaigning for the pro-torture candidate, either.

And yes, those who vote against a bill to limit interrogation techniques to those in the army field manual because it won’t allow torture techniques are pro-torture.

We could get into an argument about what is and is not torture, but I don’t even think that’s necessary. The Church has been very clear about what issues take precedence over others. You seem to weigh a controversial issue over the possible torture of a few likely murderous people far above the absolutely clear holocaust on millions of totally-innocent human beings.

That’s a truly sick moral balancing act you’re making there.

If it’s a choice I have to make, I’ll take the millions of innocents over anything that happens to a few murderers (or would-be murderers). What direction do you think B-16’s encyclical would indicate is more harmful, both to individuals and to our society? Which is a more damaging root cause?

 

[andrewagill]

We could get into an argument about what is and is not torture, but I don’t even think that’s necessary. The Church has been very clear about what issues take precedence over others.

Yes.

She has.

Veritatis Splendor

1. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

The Church has declared torture to be just as evil as abortion.

I cannot in good conscience support anyone who supports torture, and if you think you can, you are in error.