Abortion and death penalty come before climate change for church, Vatican official says

[Latias]

I have not always supported pro-life causes. I have started to become more involved over the years. Knowing what we do now about abortion, it makes sense to vote for pro life candidates, don’t you think?

Are you in the U.S.?

My reference to Kiev was an allusion and metaphorical. I could also be the Waffen SS in the Falaise pocket.

I had a disdain for American conservatism before I was a Catholic as I high school and college student, but it mutated by focusing less on domestic policy and more on foreign policy. I will simply not vote for most conservative candidates, and I do not see the utility of voting (even from a collective perspective of having an informed, engage citizenry participating in elections). But this is about Pope Francis, not my odium towards conservatism or my views about liberal democracy.

As a Catholic, even a lukewarm one, I should not expect the Pope to conform to a particular political view, since he is the Vicar of Christ. Indeed, during my conservation, the luminosity of Christ had nothing to do with the political. But I find it slightly upsetting that some Catholics are carping about the, at most, tepid “socialism” of Pope Francis since it does not conform with their ideological predilections.

 

[lax16]

My reference to Kiev was an allusion and metaphorical. I could also be the Waffen SS in the Falaise pocket.

I had a disdain for American conservatism before I was a Catholic as I high school and college student, but it mutated by focusing less on domestic policy and more on foreign policy. I will simply not vote for most conservative candidates, and I do not see the utility of voting (even from a collective perspective of having an informed, engage citizenry participating in elections). But this is about Pope Francis, not my odium towards conservatism or my views about liberal democracy.

As a Catholic, even a lukewarm one, I should not expect the Pope to conform to a particular political view, since he is the Vicar of Christ. Indeed, during my conservation, the luminosity of Christ had nothing to do with the political. But I find it slightly upsetting that some Catholics are carping about the, at most, tepid “socialism” of Pope Francis since it does not conform with their ideological predilections.

You are not alone in feeling upset about some Catholics complaining about Pope Francis.
However, why is that a reason to stop attending mass and confession?

I have learned long ago not to act upon my feelings. I am not a Catholic because of a person, I will not stop being Catholic because of a person. If you have you studied the history of the Church you will know there has always been dissension and yet the Catholic Church has survived.

The evil one is working overtime, preying on Catholics like I us that hate to see the disagreement among fellow Catholics. That is because so many non-religious people are turning towards the Pope and the evil one knows that he is no match for Pope Francis.

Don’t despair! You are in good company. Don’t abandon the Church - she needs you and you need her.

 

[lynnvinc]

theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/25/abortion-and-death-penalty-come-before-climate-change-for-church-vatican-official-says

That’s a no brainer. When one has an abortion she is consciously and willfully killing a person. When one profligately emits greenhouse gases he/she may not even be aware that he/she is contributing to the harm and death of others. And even if the person is aware, the amount of their contribution is very small, and there is no way of knowing how many people will be killed or harmed over the 100s to 100,000 of years a portion of that person’s GHGs will be in the atmosphere…it might eventually equal out to one person killing one person on average or maybe more, but we have no way of knowing in advance.

However, I think that conscious, willful, and egregious climate change denial efforts that cause many others not to mitigate climate change would be a more serious sin. That is still nowhere near the seriousness of having an abortion or killing a gas station attendant during a robbery, but it seems to me to be a much more serious sin than simply profligately emitting GHGs throughout one’s life. I don’t know if it would be a serious sin or on the serious side of a venial sin.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and not emit GHGs profligately nor influence others to do so.

 

[lax16]

That’s a no brainer. When one has an abortion she is consciously and willfully killing a person. When one profligately emits greenhouse gases he/she may not even be aware that he/she is contributing to the harm and death of others. And even if the person is aware, the amount of their contribution is very small, and there is no way of knowing how many people will be killed or harmed over the 100s to 100,000 of years a portion of that person’s GHGs will be in the atmosphere…it might eventually equal out to one person killing one person on average or maybe more, but we have no way of knowing in advance.

What about the women that were told it was just a clump of cells? Or who had an abortion under threatening circumstances? Now we have ultrasounds and videos showing that it is obviously not just a clump of cells but many women have had abortions without full knowledge of what they were doing.

We cannot assume that every woman who has had an abortion willfully killed another person. Most women have been lied to regarding abortion! Many of these women are victims as well and need our support to help bring them to the Truth.

 

[lynnvinc]

What about the women that were told it was just a clump of cells? Or who had an abortion under threatening circumstances? Now we have ultrasounds and videos showing that it is obviously not just a clump of cells but many women have had abortions without full knowledge of what they were doing.

We cannot assume that every woman who has had an abortion willfully killed another person. Most women have been lied to regarding abortion! Many of these women are victims as well and need our support to help bring them to the Truth.

I’m thinking it would not be as serious a sin then. I actually know of one case.

My grandmother, born 1887, when she got pregnant the first time. Granddad said he’d “fix” it and took her to the doctor; she explains she was a stupid little thing and didn’t quite understand what he meant. When she came out she was no longer pregnant. When she got pregnant the 2nd time she explains that she had become a lot smarter by then and when granddad wanted to take her to the doctor to “fix” it, she said, “No, I want this baby.”

That baby was my father…

 

[FollowChrist34]

It would seem the Pope’s message to Congress and to the U.S. is pastoral, and that his approach is not to harangue or to condemn but rather to attempt to draw people closer to the teachings of Christ and salvation. That this is not the perspective of some Catholics is clear enough, and I believe the Pope thinks this needs to change if the U.S. Church is to thrive.

Harangue? I don’t know - I think if I hear the word “family” “hope” or “love” one more time this weekend I won’t be responsible for my actions…

It’s ironic, speaking of family, Pope Francis does actually remind me of my father. Try and try, I could never quite get my head around what really made him tick…not for lack of effort either I assure you.

I do agree though that Francis has opted to be “positive” on social issues rather than “negative”. Encourage and support people to choose the right things - hence they will be less likely to do the wrong things, like abortion, etc. Another point from the talk to the Bishops today - I must admit I often see the Catholic hierarchy and clergy as very intellectual, inspiring maybe but not really hands on, smelling like the sheep. It is interesting that Francis mentioned that - it is a more Protestant style of clergy he seems to be pushing, making real connections with families in their struggles, etc. (which I think is interesting, not bad, a tall order)

SSM seems to have been a bit of a hot potato - nuclear even - I don’t think it was mentioned - but again we are ALL pretty clear now if not before on what the Catholic Church sees as the family structure…ad infinitum. It is a subtle approach, and very sunny. I don’t take naturally to it - but I get it. Will liberal America? Who knows.

 

[lax16]

I’m thinking it would not be as serious a sin then. I actually know of one case.

My grandmother, born 1887, when she got pregnant the first time. Granddad said he’d “fix” it and took her to the doctor; she explains she was a stupid little thing and didn’t quite understand what he meant. When she came out she was no longer pregnant. When she got pregnant the 2nd time she explains that she had become a lot smarter by then and when granddad wanted to take her to the doctor to “fix” it, she said, “No, I want this baby.”

That baby was my father…

Wonderful story!

I always wonder what the back story is for every woman that has had an abortion.

 

[lynnvinc]

Some conservatives may say that without stressing orthodoxy and genuine morality (such as a focus on the family and opposition against same sex marriage and abortion), Pope Francis would not provide the seeds with fertile soil.

A Catholic should rejoice at those who have been softened by Pope Francis, instead of railing at him for endorsing a “communist” (Dorothy Day) and speaking about abortion in mitigated, oblique terms. As for me, I am so disillusioned concerning the Church and power of the Spirit, that I think I am beyond redemption now. And no, stressing abortion and gay marriage has no allure to me at all, since I see those issues as the refuge of moral scoundrels and hypocrites (irrespective of whether abortion is actually immoral or not).

Maybe I would be more receptive again if I could see more joy and less partisanship, but I suppose much of it is my fault for hanging around here in the “World News” section of this forum.

I don’t come to CAF much anymore, it is so demoralizing.

How is it I was able to understand clearly for the past 25 years or more that climate change is a huge life issue in that it involves the death of many people well into the future for 1000s of years (just from what we’ve emitted so far)? How is it that so many here are unwilling to lift a little finger to reduce their GHG emissions (thereby also reducing concomitant local pollution, which also harms and kills) – just in case JPII, BXVI, or Pope Francis and 1000s of scientists might be right about climate change and our need to mitigate it?

Just because one is not out having abortions and involved in licentious sins and wicked crimes, it doesn’t mean they are not harming and killing people in other ways, including contributing to miscarriages, which various forms of local pollution do.

My solution to this demoralization has been to replace time at CAF with solitaire and other distractions, various work and duties, AND get back into daily prayers and meditation. I too feel almost “beyond redemption.” I think the Catholic Church in America has gone in a very bad direction. I’m hoping Pope Francis can “revive” me and the Church here.

Some 5 or so years ago I asked our priest why he never mentioned global warming in his homilies, and he told me he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics. I guess in Rush they trust, they are a Rush-fearing people. I even got the eerie feeling the priest himself might be a Rush Limbaugh Catholic. This fear among priests in America is probably rampant. I asked my Carmelite brothers and sisters from various parishes around our diocese if their priests had mentioned anything about Laudato Si – not one of them had heard a word about it from their priests.

When Pope Francis told the bishops this past week to not be afraid, to take courage, I was thinking that perhaps he might also be implying the idea that they should not be afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in their parishes and diocese.

 

[Latias]

I don’t come to CAF much anymore, it is so demoralizing.

How is it I was able to understand clearly for the past 25 years or more that climate change is a huge life issue in that it involves the death of many people well into the future for 1000s of years (just from what we’ve emitted so far)? How is it that so many here are unwilling to lift a little finger to reduce their GHG emissions (thereby also reducing concomitant local pollution, which also harms and kills) – just in case JPII, BXVI, or Pope Francis and 1000s of scientists might be right about climate change and our need to mitigate it?

Just because one is not out having abortions and involved in licentious sins and wicked crimes, it doesn’t mean they are not harming and killing people in other ways, including contributing to miscarriages, which various forms of local pollution do.

My solution to this demoralization has been to replace time at CAF with solitaire and other distractions, various work and duties, AND get back into daily prayers and meditation. I too feel almost “beyond redemption.” I think the Catholic Church in America has gone in a very bad direction. I’m hoping Pope Francis can “revive” me and the Church here.

Some 5 or so years ago I asked our priest why he never mentioned global warming in his homilies, and he told me he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics. I guess in Rush they trust, they are a Rush-fearing people. I even got the eerie feeling the priest himself might be a Rush Limbaugh Catholic. This fear among priests in America is probably rampant. I asked my Carmelite brothers and sisters from various parishes around our diocese if their priests had mentioned anything about Laudato Si – not one of them had heard a word about it from their priests.

When Pope Francis told the bishops this past week to not be afraid, to take courage, I was thinking that perhaps he might also be implying the idea that they should not be afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in their parishes and diocese.

I, to whatever degree, am a Catholic, but I have not said much on the World News section qua a Catholic.

However, I was able to before separate any political ideology and sentiment from Catholicism and religious piety. Indeed, as I was religious zealous, the degree of my political convention considerably waned since I deemed it to be an impediment for being a disciple of Christ, although I was intellectually capable of defending my political views and never fully renounced its ideological content and retained much sympathy for it. But as I became disenchanted with the my faith and the Catholic Church, my previous political fervor recrudesced.

I have learned long ago not to act upon my feelings. I am not a Catholic because of a person, I will not stop being Catholic because of a person. If you have you studied the history of the Church you will know there has always been dissension and yet the Catholic Church has survived.

My feelings are somewhat informed by my intellect, and I usually act in accord to my feelings.

Here’s a quote from another thread:

What has been failing is the soft, watered down, compromising, lukewarm presentation of Catholic faith or Church doctrines which became fashionable in the 1960’s, and which was conditioned by modern trends of thought that undermine faith and morality, such as existentialism and personalism and experietialism and psychology. This approach obscured and falsified truth. A new approach should resemble the bold preaching and teaching of the apostles and the Church Fathers and the evangelical saints of later times, and it should be supplemented with knowledge drawn from the scholastic theologians. It isn’t enough to talk about our personal experience of Jesus invite people to a personal relationship with him. That isn’t the faith of the Catholic Church. People need to be drawn into the Church, not into their own subjectivity.

That is in light of what I said earlier on this thread.

Some conservatives may say that without stressing orthodoxy and genuine morality (such as a focus on the family and opposition against same sex marriage and abortion), Pope Francis would not provide the seeds with fertile soil.

A Catholic should rejoice at those who have been softened by Pope Francis, instead of railing at him for endorsing a “communist” (Dorothy Day) and speaking about abortion in mitigated, oblique terms.

 

[Latias]

In contrast, many Catholics infuse their political identity into their religious beliefs, sometimes resulting in aggrandized self-righteous attitude that neither alone would be insufficient to maintain. That is a rather negative fashion of incorporating religious beliefs into political ideology, but in its benign fashion it could inform someone on taking a different stance on some political issue or even taking (non-violent) action and engaging in political activism. However, as for me, it seems that my political convictions and Catholicism are quite incompatible, but at least I could be aloof and apolitical since I am immune from being embroiled in the divisive disputes of mainstream political discourse. I was capable of railing against either conservatives or liberals, but since do not align myself with a mainstream party, I see no point denigrating others. On a humanistic level, one should maintain sympathy for the least fortunate humans, but supernaturally one should imitate Christ.

I got a 101 second Minesweeper on the advanced level, if you want to speak of distractions.

 

[Suudy]

We cannot assume that every woman who has had an abortion willfully killed another person. Most women have been lied to regarding abortion! Many of these women are victims as well and need our support to help bring them to the Truth.

I agree 100%. Indeed, even with the explosion in availability of information, many pregnant women are distressed and may not make a fully rational decision. Which is why I think the woman is the least culpable agent. And this is why if there is to be a legal and/or political solution, it has to be directed at the abortion doctor, not the woman. Not only does it get to the person who has the most knowledge and greatest degree of consent, it disarms the “war on women” angle that many pro-abortion folk take.

As pro-life advocates we should be advocating for the life of the child and to err on the side of the woman. That is, our outrage should be directed at the person directly killing the child, and our sympathy to the woman.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My reference to Kiev was an allusion and metaphorical. I could also be the Waffen SS in the Falaise pocket.

I had a disdain for American conservatism before I was a Catholic as I high school and college student, but it mutated by focusing less on domestic policy and more on foreign policy. I will simply not vote for most conservative candidates, and I do not see the utility of voting (even from a collective perspective of having an informed, engage citizenry participating in elections). But this is about Pope Francis, not my odium towards conservatism or my views about liberal democracy.

As a Catholic, even a lukewarm one, I should not expect the Pope to conform to a particular political view, since he is the Vicar of Christ. Indeed, during my conservation, the luminosity of Christ had nothing to do with the political. But I find it slightly upsetting that some Catholics are carping about the, at most, tepid “socialism” of Pope Francis since it does not conform with their ideological predilections.

hi. I converted to Catholicism from a right and proper nihilistic atheism. When I “discovered” there were Catholic women such as Dorothy Day and Madeleine Delbrel, my view of what it meant to be Catholic, changed. Being Catholic does not mean being politically conservative, or politically liberal. It means, following Christ.

I’m of the sort who really doesn’t care what others think about what I think. Most of the time, at the parish, I keep my inner Day and Delbrel hidden, mainly because most people view them as representing an ideology, rather than who they were. The complete opposite of ideologies, and an amazing fact of both their conversions to Christ from atheism. They understood that political ideologies are not what saves humanity. But sometimes, I do speak my mind, if I think I can without coming across as conveying political ideology. But whatever, I don’t hate conservatives. I am jaded about American politics. I can’t see voting the next presidential election, as I don’t like the Dems of Reps, and no Libertarians, they make me want to throw something!

I do like Pope Francis, and think he is a good person for me to copy. Seeks to build bridges, and doesn’t put himself in a position where he would need to back down. But still says what needs to be said. And, he listed Dorothy a Day as one of four great Americans, in front of Congress.

There’s really no satisfying some people. I mean people who don’t like our Pope because of what he doesn’t say, also don’t like him for what he does say. I see it as just wishing to silence everything that doesn’t align to personal ideologies. Christianity is not an ideology.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The correlation is not one of numbers but of attitude. The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor. It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion.

Well said.

 

[Ender]

Well said.

Except, what was said is not accurate.

*“The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle…”

The church has always taught, and accepts today, that the state does have the right to take the life of a person justly convicted of a heinous crime. There is no false sense in that position."Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime…* (USCCB, 1980)

*The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
“…when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor.”

There is nothing in God’s comment on the matter that suggests capital punishment should be limited to protection, nor has the church (prior to 1995) ever suggested otherwise. The only thing that justifies its use is retributive justice: whether the severity of the penalty is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The punishment can only be used if the person deserves it. If he does not deserve to die for the crime he has already committed how can we believe he deserves to die for a crime he only threatens to commit?

*“It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion.”

*Abortion involves the destruction of the innocent. Capital punishment involves the execution of the guilty. These are entirely different matters. Pius XI spoke to this specific point in Casti Connubi.
It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty.
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Except, what was said is not accurate.

*“The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle…”

The church has always taught, and accepts today, that the state does have the right to take the life of a person justly convicted of a heinous crime. There is no false sense in that position."Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime…* (USCCB, 1980)

*The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
“…when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor.”

There is nothing in God’s comment on the matter that suggests capital punishment should be limited to protection, nor has the church (prior to 1995) ever suggested otherwise. The only thing that justifies its use is retributive justice: whether the severity of the penalty is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The punishment can only be used if the person deserves it. If he does not deserve to die for the crime he has already committed how can we believe he deserves to die for a crime he only threatens to commit?

*“It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion.”

*Abortion involves the destruction of the innocent. Capital punishment involves the execution of the guilty. These are entirely different matters. Pius XI spoke to this specific point in Casti Connubi.
It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty.
Ender

Guilty in the eyes of Christ, the Son of Man who was given by the Father the power to do judgment? (John 5:26-27)

As provided by U.S. federal law, both abortion and SSM are legal. Is this the law that binds Catholics? Perhaps the one who is without sin should push the button to execute a prisoner.

 

[Ender]

Guilty in the eyes of Christ, the Son of Man who was given by the Father the power to do judgment? (John 5:26-27)

I don’t understand this what this comment means.

As provided by U.S. federal law, both abortion and SSM are legal. Is this the law that binds Catholics?

Of course not. We are bound by moral law, not federal law.

Perhaps the one who is without sin should push the button to execute a prisoner.

The church has never suggested this was a requirement.*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. *(Augustine)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t understand this what this comment means.
Of course not. We are bound by moral law, not federal law.

It means that If we are bound by moral law, not federal law, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Who would it be that is without sin? The power to make moral judgements is reserved for Christ.

 

[Ender]

It means that If we are bound by moral law, not federal law, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Who would it be that is without sin? The power to make moral judgements is reserved for Christ.

Not only the power to make moral judgements but the responsibility to do so belongs to us all. It is not that all judgement is denied us, but only judgements about those things we cannot know. We are to judge so long as we do it properly.* “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” *(CCC 1807)
We may judge the rightness of an act. What we are forbidden to do is judge the person who commits the act.However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (CCC 1861)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Not only the power to make moral judgements but the responsibility to do so belongs to us all. It is not that all judgement is denied us, but only judgements about those things we cannot know. We are to judge so long as we do it properly.* “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge* your neighbor.” (CCC 1807)
We may judge the rightness of an act. What we are forbidden to do is judge the person who commits the act.However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. (CCC 1861)
Ender

Would you then suppose the execution of a human being is loving the sinner?

 

[lynnvinc]

I think the main issue here is I have never had an abortion and I have always been against the death penalty. But when I found out I was killing and harming people thru climate change and it many negative knock on effect back in the late 80s, I made it a point to reduce our GHG emissions – which has the felicitous side-effects of saving us money without lowering our living standard AND reducing our harming and killing through other environmental harms.

Just because one is not having abortions and just because one opposes the death penalty, does not get one off the hook of other requirements to reduce harm and killing, even tho abortion is a much graver sin.

I know it is a lot more fun to point fingers at those wicked people who are having abortions than to do the hard work of first acknowledging that one is also harming others in other ways (including contributing to environmental-induced miscarriages and birth defects) AND to strive to reduce that harm…which really is difficult, like struggling to break bad habits.

I remember in the early 90s reading an editorial in the Christian Sci Monitor in which the author spoke about how difficult it was for him to do even the smallest things, like recycling or bringing a reusable bag when shopping.

Let me offer some encouragement for reducing our environmental harms through THE LITTLE WAY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALING, fashioned after St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood (her day is coming tomorrow, and for us Carmelites; today is a fast day for us):

We are faced with enormous environmental problems that kill people, and destroy property and wildlife. Everyone needs to help solve these.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus teaches us the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. She felt she could not perform the big mortifications of the saints. We also feel we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences.

St. Therese, though, was determined to become a saint. She read, “Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” Following this, St. Therese in childlike simplicity offered God all of her small deeds of ordinary life, and placed all her trust in God to help her scale the cliffs of perfection and avoid temptations. This is the Little Way. “Not everyone can fast, or wear hair shirts, or spend hours in prayer,” she used to say, “but everyone can love!” One thing alone is needful: all must be done for love of God.

What is needed to solve the big environmental problems is a life of many small deeds done out of love for God. We need to offer many small prayers to help us understand the problems and find solutions, and then more prayers to carry out our actions in daily life.

We need faith that our small deeds will, with God’s grace, amount to more than a meaningless drop in the bucket, letting Jesus multiply our fish & loaves; Mother Teresa said our love makes our small deeds infinite. We need hope that we will one day be rejoicing with God in heaven, so we need not be too concerned with worldly riches, comforts, and status. We need the charity of joyfully sharing God’s bounty and beauty with others around the world and in the future by helping to save the Earth.

Laudato Si also offers great encouragement, and I’m now into the LITTLE WAY OF SACRIFICING TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS: Like eating less and putting the AC up to 82F (from 79F), just at the discomfort level. Here is the pdf: w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf

Lord, show me more ways to reduce my harms to others.