Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[Drlit]

Glenn Beck referenced Peter Singer this evening.

Here is a link to an interview on this fruitcake.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963

 

[ufamtobie]

Should abortion ever actually be defined as a crime, in some states some people would eligible for the death penalty.

If all life is intrinsically sacred to God, then shouldn’t there be absolutely no reason to put a person to death no matter how heinous of their crime so there remains the possibility of their soul being saved? After all, if Christianity is about saving one’s soul, then shouldn’t the death penalty be removed no matter what the reason since it removes the possibility for saving that soul?

Hi there Starwynd,

The Catholic Church is against Abortion and the Death Penalty!

Ufamtobie

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC would have you, a pro-lifer, FAIL to vote for the candidate who would save more lives if elected and throw your vote to Candidate C (a third party Constitutionalist or the crank down the street who somehow got on the ballot or who knows what) while Sally WILL vote for the consistently pro-choice candidate.

You are missing two important points. First, from a religious perspective, I would be following God’s law. As a Roman Catholic I believe that such activity will be rewarded, perhaps not in this lifetime, but rewarded.

Second, from a political perspective, my way seems more sensible. If the majority of Catholics voted their faith, then a candidate who foresakes intrinsic evil outright could have a political base of about 1/4 the population. If any of the self-described “religious right” cares more about their stated values than their political party, the number gets larger still. That is a formidable voice in politics.

Using your method, the vote is fragmented. People such as yourself, who believe that voting for a party that is at odds with Rome on war, the death penalty, modern forms of slavery in an American protectorate, a socially just economy, etc. is still a moral must, Catholics who look at war, a death penalty expanded to minors and to non homicidal crimes, actual abortion rates and attacks on marriage moving in the wrong direction and compromise on abortion to a different degree, and people like myself, who will not compromise on abortion, period.

You waggle your finger and talk about saving lives, but where is the reality? The deaths we can count, hundreds of thousands killed and millions of refugees. But 5 GOP appointed Catholics on the Supreme court hasn’t even overturned Roe, and that would just move the battle to the states - which have seen a large shift towards a ‘pro choice’ party because of our compromises on war and a socially just economy.

A gay male prostitute got two years of instant access to the white house, and an openly gay woman, having a child inside an ‘gay union’ headed up the Vice President’s re-election effort. Those two should be no surprise, the same party helped cover up the activities of a predatory gay pedophile in their caucus for a decade. But hey, what is the family, the Sacrament of Marriage, or society’s protection of minors in comparison to empty rhetoric about abortion…

 

[vz71]

Although I think it is a deplorable document, the bishops statement on voting clearly allows people to support candidates who support abortion. If there is one sentence that will be extracted from that document by people who intend to do just that as justification for their position it is this:

*42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. *

Ender

So what issue do you place ahead of life itself?

 

[vz71]

LOL…fat chance. they won’t agree with you there, since the Vatican has not spoken “infallibly” and still allows them to use the death penalty and still adher to this vile war. No, they cafeteria the heck out of those two things. Knowing what the Vatican believes is parsed to what the Vatican demands they believe. The clear import of what is being said is of no consequence, they can still wiggle out of it and salute the executioner and the warmongers.

When just war and lawful execution are placed on par with abortion, then you may have a point.

But as it is right now, you do not.

 

[vz71]

Hi there Starwynd,

The Catholic Church is against Abortion and the Death Penalty!

Ufamtobie

Correct, but there is no need to connect one with the other as done in the original post.
Doing so creates an unsupported conclusion on a non-existant situation. A straw man.

 

[bilop]

What is the goal? I’d say ‘fewer abortions’.

Putting canidates ‘who want’ in charge has produced no progress towards that goal. In fact, the measurable data points in the wrong direction (abortions fell must under Clinton since Roe).

Also, what if the candidate promotes death in other ways, like euthanasia and the death penalty?

I think the answer is to more fully embrace the faith. Compromise on intrinsic evil just rewards evil. But my approach, because it ignores ‘practical’ concerns, assumes that God, not men, is the source of good and true power. A pretty big leap of faith.

The problem is we need pro-life politicians at all levels, and over a long time period (to replace the SC justices who support abortion).

It’s not enough just to vote for pro-life Presidents. We need pro-life Congressmen, Senators, Governors and State Legistlators too.

The problem is so many Catholics and other pro-life Christians are so attached to their other political loyalties that they insist on voting for pro-Abortion candidates, and looking for flimsy theological cover to do so.

As I said before, if every Catholic voted for the most pro-life major candidate in every election, Abortion would be reduced 99% within 10-15 years.

I know of no pro-life politician who supports euthanasia.

Capital punishment is not a non-negotiable life issue, as has been pointed out 63 times in this thread. Catholics are free to support or oppose the death penalty.

God Bless

 

[fix]

Are SoCalRC’s posts deliberately misleading?

It’s hard to see otherwise. I go back to post #21 where he replied to a post that I made. He called it “dangerous” and “moral relativism” to point out the murders of 1.31 million babies as opposed to 42 convicts put to death…

Thank you for your posts and for taking the time to refute what needed to be refuted.

For you and Vern:

Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo does answer a dilemma that many good Catholics find themselves in when all the candidates – at least among those likely to win – seem to support at least some abortions. What then? Are we required to vote for a candidate who does not have a sufficient base to win? Are we required to abstain from voting altogether? The answer to both is no. We may vote for the candidate who supports less abortion than his or her opponent. This is supported by the following sentence in the footnote to the Cardinal’s memo: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion … but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it … can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

The Cardinal had already explained that abortion is not proportionate to other issues, but is certainly proportionate to itself.

 

[Ender]

What I find interesting is that you object to the document (presumably having rejected it as a legitimate reflection of Church Doctrine), but then present it anyway.

It’s not that simple. I cannot casually reject the entire document; it is after all the opinion of all but four of our bishops. I do recognize, however, that it was created by a committee (or, more precisely, representatives of at least seven different constituencies within the USCCB) and it reflects the mishmash you expect of something drawn up by groups with different priorities.

There are some things in the document I do accept; the one most relevant to this discussion is that it is permissible to vote for someone who supports an issue of intrinsic evil. Where the document completely fails, however, is in providing any useful direction on when that may be appropriate, leaving the individual free to follow his own inclinations virtually unrestrained.

Do you also consider Rome’s Doctrinal Note a ‘terrible document’?

It suffers from some of the same flaws. On the one hand it says that not all issues have the same moral weight and singles out abortion and euthanasia for special condemnation … and then attaches a laundry list of other issues implying that they are also in that same category - yet this cannot be true. The other issues are all evils and all reprehensible but they are not evil to the same degree as abortion and anyone who argues they are needs to explain why it is abortion alone that brings with it automatic excommunication. So, yes, I am disappointed with Rome’s document as well and for pretty much the same reasons.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

The problem is we need pro-life politicians at all levels, and over a long time period (to replace the SC justices who support abortion).

The problem is that you need to transform the culture, not just politics. If you do not, then you might get sway for awhile, but the system will move towards what society wants, not vice versa.

If you transform the culture, then popular election of the right values gets easier. But if you compromise from the get go, you are joining the culture of death, not setting an example to the contrary.

There are 5 GOP appointed Catholic Supreme Court Justices on the court now. I notice they had no problem expanding the death penalty (which the Church tells us fuels a culture of death), and no problem helping to stop elderly nuns from voting in Indiana, but when Carhart was before the court, the two latest did not join Scalia and Thomas in objecting to Roe.

They are political appointees, so why should they be ‘pure’ when one starts with the politics of compromise?

 

[SoCalRC]

When just war and lawful execution are placed on par with abortion, then you may have a point.

But as it is right now, you do not.

But abortion does not ‘stand alone’, at least according to the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Rome gives 9 examples of non negotiable principles in voting.

 

[bilop]

The problem is that you need to transform the culture, not just politics. If you do not, then you might get sway for awhile, but the system will move towards what society wants, not vice versa.

If every Catholic decided to oppose abortion, the culture would be changed.

The nation is split pretty evenly on abortion, so are Catholics, and Catholics are 20-25% of the population. If all Catholics opposed abortion in the voting booth, the country would go from 50-50 on abortion to 60-40 pro-life. The debate would be over.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

I do think Ender left my particular question up in the air.

Perhaps the best analysis of the Church’s position on capital punishment was written by Cardinal Avery Dulles. I strongly suggest you read it if you are really interested in this subject. There is also a good explanation of the relationship between capital punishment and justice by J. Budziszewski.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=4099
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7186

The basis for the morality of capital punishment is Romans 13:4 (this is not my opinion, this is the verse cited throughout Church documents).

One of the strongest arguments I have seen against JPII’s “not necessary to protect society” statement is this:

"Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer."

I find this to be a devastating critique. We are justified in executing a person not for what he has done but only for what he may do.

I have lots of this stuff if you want more.

Ender

 

[bilop]

But abortion does not ‘stand alone’, at least according to the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Rome gives 9 examples of non negotiable principles in voting.

And the death penalty and opposition to all war are not among them.

God Bless

 

[wildleafblower]

ABORTION

Code of Canon Law
BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA
PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS
TITLE VI. DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM (Cann. 1397 - 1398)
TITLE VI.

DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM (Cann. 1397 - 1398)

Can. 1397 A person who commits a homicide or who kidnaps, detains, mutilates, or gravely wounds a person by force or fraud is to be punished with the privations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336 according to the gravity of the delict. Homicide against the persons mentioned in can. 1370, however, is to be punished by the penalties established there.

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM
WAR (ref.msg. 169)

BENEDICT XVI
ANGELUS
Lorenzago di Cadore (Belluno)
Sunday, 22 July 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In these days of rest which thanks to God I am spending here in Cadore, I feel even more acutely the sorrowful impact of the news I am receiving about the bloodshed from conflicts and the episodes of violence happening in so many parts of the world. This prompts me to reflect once again today on the drama of human freedom in the world.

The beauty of nature reminds us that we have been appointed by God to “tend and care for” this “garden” which is the earth (cf. Gn 2: 8-17), and I see that you truly tend and take care of this beautiful garden of God, a true paradise. So, when people live in peace with God and one another, the earth truly resembles a “paradise”.

Unfortunately, sin ruins ever anew this divine project, causing division and introducing death into the world. Thus, humanity succumbs to the temptations of the Evil One and wages war against itself. Patches of “hell” are consequently also created in this marvellous “garden” which is the world. In the midst of this beauty, we must never forget the situations in which our brothers and sisters at times find themselves.

War, with its aftermath of bereavement and destruction, has always been deemed a disaster in opposition to the plan of God, who created all things for existence and particularly wants to make the human race one family.

I cannot avoid here calling to mind a significant date: 1 August 1917 - exactly 90 years ago - on which my venerable Predecessor, Pope Benedict XV, addressed his famous Note to the Heads of Belligerent Peoples, calling for an end to the First World War (cf. AAS 9 [1917], 417-420). While that inhuman conflict was raging, the Pope had the courage to call it a “senseless slaughter”. His words are engraved in history. They were justified in the actual situation of that summer of 1917, especially on this Venetian front.

But these words, “senseless slaughter”, also contain a broader, more prophetic value and can be applied to many other conflicts that have struck down countless human lives. These very regions where we are, which themselves speak of peace, harmony and the Creator’s goodness, were the theatre of the First World War, as so many testimonies and several moving Alpine songs still recall. These events must not be forgotten! We must remember the negative experiences our forebears unfortunately suffered in order not to repeat them.

Pope Benedict XV’s Note was not limited to condemning the war; it also pointed out in a juridical perspective ways to build a just and lasting peace: the moral force of law, balanced and controlled disarmament, arbitration in disputes, the freedom of the seas, reciprocal amnesty for the costs of war, the restitution of occupied territories and fair negotiations to settle problems.

The Holy See’s proposal was oriented to the future of Europe and the world. It complied with a project that was Christian in inspiration but could be shared by all since it was based on the rights of peoples. **This was the same structure to which the Servants of God Paul VI and John Paul II adhered in their memorable Discourses to the United Nations Assembly, repeating on the Church’s behalf: “War never again!”. **

From this place of peace, where one is even more vividly aware of how unacceptable the horrors of “senseless slaughters” are, I renew my appeal to adhere tenaciously to the path of law, to consistently ban the arms race and, more generally, to reject the temptation to tackle new situations with old systems.

With these thoughts and hopes in my heart that this may always be, as it is now thanks be to God, a place of peace and hospitality,** let us now raise a special prayer for peace in the world, entrusting it to Mary Most Holy, Queen of Peace.** I wish you all a good Sunday and good vacation. Thank you for everything!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20070722_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20070722_en.html

 

[SoCalRC]

If every Catholic decided to oppose abortion, the culture would be changed.

The nation is split pretty evenly on abortion, so are Catholics, and Catholics are 20-25% of the population. If all Catholics opposed abortion in the voting booth, the country would go from 50-50 on abortion to 60-40 pro-life. The debate would be over.

God Bless

Actually, that is only true if we set an arbitrary standard. If we look at polls done over the last 30 years we find a sliding scale, with only 1/5 to 1/20 professing to hold the Catholic view (abortion illegal in all cases).

When that already small group is polled, we find even more divisions, for example, abortions in the case of ectopic gestations or uterine cancer. So only a tiny percentage of even Catholics truly accept our pro-life teaching on the matter.

We know that prohibition alone does not work, we tried it for about a century and we know that abortions occured, in serious numbers at some points. Now that chemical abortificants are becoming widespread, there is no reason to believe that the secular research is incorrect, legal status has only a very small impact on actual abortion rates around the world.

We also know that simple math does not work. We gave one political party control of all branches of the government (not just a majority of appointees on the supreme court, but a majority of appointees at all levels). The crowning achievement was a bill that professed to address about 2,000 abortions annually, but which even the people who proposed knew would stop not one.

Just to make sure, the Supreme Court not only argued that the ban would not stop any abortions, it provided handy guidelines to help the ban get circumvented.

I have to agree with some of the Catholic Pro Life groups that took exception to that whole endeavor. It seems highly probably that the entire effort had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with politics and fund raising.

I understand people wanted to answer compelling emotion, but as you noted, it is a long race. If we start cutting corners and trying to take shortcuts when the finish line is nowhere in sight, we do not know if the ‘cheats’ are going to be effective, but we do know that they errode our credibility and let the other side question our sincerity.

 

[SoCalRC]

It’s not that simple. I cannot casually reject the entire document; it is after all the opinion of all but four of our bishops.

As I noted, the origin compells me to take it seriously as well.

There are some things in the document I do accept; the one most relevant to this discussion is that it is permissible to vote for someone who supports an issue of intrinsic evil.

…

It suffers from some of the same flaws. On the one hand it says…

It seems that what you ultimately have trouble with is this:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

As you have stated in the past, you consider a comprehensive application of faith to be counter productive. ‘That is the problem’ I believe you said. Your thinking seems to be that teachings should be pragmatically addressed one at a time and that acting otherwise is self defeating.

So, it makes sense that you approve of the parts of the USCCB’s statement that can be interpretted as supporting a pragmatic approach.

However, from a theological standpoint, the Bishop’s and Rome’s point of view makes perfect sense. Abortion, as a stand alone teaching, does not make sense. Look at CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, it starts by asserting that the inalienable rights of the human person cannot be abridged. This is dogmatic per the Second Vatican Council. The Pope then asserts that the most fundemental expression of these rights is life, so that right cannot be abridged, at “any stage” or “any condition”. So, focusing solely on abortion would be the opposite of the teaching that supports it. (The “any stage” and “any condition” is replaced with ‘we can rank and prioritize the values of lives…’, which presumably is the thinking of those that support abortion).

What I am interested in is why you are so certain that a cafeteria approach, combined with political pragmatism is a more correct pursuit of the Catholic faith?

Is it that you find the faith ‘impractical’ in the ‘real world’? Is it an outlook of “God helps those who help themselves”? A strong faith in the works of men? Or something else?

 

[SoCalRC]

Thank you for your posts and for taking the time to refute what needed to be refuted.

For you and Vern:

How peculiar that you invoke the Magesterium, but keep avoiding it. Why quibble over a memo, Ratzinger wrote a Doctrinal Note on voting, which was approved by the Pope?

As Pope Benedict, it is still clearly his view, because he has cited it in his papal works.

Similiarly, the analysis you cite seems to imply that the argument of “proportionate reasons” can only be construed one way. But if we look to the statement from the USCCB, the concept is ellaborated on and, much to Ender’s dismay, appears to stress the opposite.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interesting that many who maintain that prolife “cultural change” has to precede any prolife effort though the legal process (including appointment of Supreme Court justices), are the very same people who argue against voting “single issue” for prolife candidates or against pro-abortion candidates, thus discouraging the very “cultural change” they purport to espouse. In fact, it seems some come in here trying to effect “cultural change” in the opposite direction.

The last four Supreme Court Republican Supreme Court appointees are prolife. Need one more. Just because an earlier one, Anthony Kennedy, is a renegade Catholic doesn’t mean the next Republican appointee will be. The last four weren’t. For absolute certain, neither Dem candidate will appoint a prolife justice.

 

[fix]

How peculiar that you invoke the Magesterium, but keep avoiding it.

I am not avoiding it, I bind myself to it.

The problem is you think you are the magisterium. I accept the authentic interpreters and that is those in union with Rome and who have the authority to interpret. If you reject priests for life we can link to bishops who hold the same understanding.

Why quibble over a memo, Ratzinger wrote a Doctrinal Note on voting, which was approved by the Pope?

Right and they are in harmony. The then head of the USCCB asked Rome for instructions as is the proper thing. You too ought to ask Rome, or the proper authority, rather than concoct your own theories.

As Pope Benedict, it is still clearly his view, because he has cited it in his papal works.

Similiarly, the analysis you cite seems to imply that the argument of “proportionate reasons” can only be construed one way. But if we look to the statement from the USCCB, the concept is ellaborated on and, much to Ender’s dismay, appears to stress the opposite.

Again, we leave it to the magisterium, not you.