Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[SoCalRC]

1.31 million killed by abortion in a year, 42 killed by capital punishment.

If you do not know the proper value of the 42, then you cannot know the proper value of the 1.31 million.

This sort of argument is very dangerous in that it asserts that the right to life is a zero sum game. That the lives of the few can be sacrificed for the lives of the many.

But the Catholic Church rejects such moral relativism:

“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.”

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

What I find most troubling about these sorts of arguments is that they are almost never fairly or uniformly applied. For example, at the Vatican’s Conference on Climate Change Pope Benedict stated that climate change is a “right to life issue” which can effect “billions”. Do we then argue that abortion can be ignored because of climate change because of numerical comparisons?

Similarly, procurred abortions in the US are disproportionately obtained by the poor. The poor, in turn are disproportionately over represented in the criminal justice system, and distinctly over represented on death row. Does that mean we should pro-rate abortion figures? Take some percentage as preventive capital punishment?

The inalienable rights of the human person are a gift from God which we cannot abridge:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor." - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

Half of all fertilized zygotes never reach birth, does that make their destruction permissable?

Some very horrible people end up in need of substantial supportive health care at the end of their life, does that make violating the absolute nature of direct euthanasia acceptable in their case?

It is one thing if Catholics struggle with a particular Church teaching, be it the death penalty, contraception, or even masterbation. But arguing that right to life issues can be meaningful debated with simple arithmatic is, as the Church indicates, “incoherent” and an attack at on the underlying, Dogmatic, teaching.

 

[bilop]

No, a nation may have the right to use military defense, but certain criteria must be met:

If, for example, the occupying power is disproportionate in might, thus giving very limited aspects for success, then armed response could be morally incorrect. The inherent evils and injustices of war could be invoked unjustly.

Further, our obligation is to serve, but not necessarily to kill. That is why I served as a combat medic in Vietnam. One cannot go against the moral certainty of one’s conscience:

So society must provide alternatives to killing in war for individuals constrained by conscience and faith:

Remember, if we were to use your reasoning, Jesus’ response to his unjust imprisonment, torture, and execution would be ‘immoral’.

The Church accepts and has expanded upon St. Augustine’s assertion that there are licit applications of violence under an application of “Love thy neighbor”. However, it has never abandoned our deep roots of resisting evil without resorting to violence, which date to the earthly ministry of Christ. So, while it is legitimate to argue that a violent response is morally licit, it is not correct to argue that Catholics who cannot, in good conscience, resort to deadly force are morally deficient.

I thank you for your service to our country. That is indeed a very honorable way to serve.

Your analogy to Jesus is not apt, b/c only his own life was threatened. One can always allow oneself to be killed rather than resist violently.

The calculus changes when we have responsibility to defend others. When our family or nation is threatened, I believe, and the Catechism states, that we have a duty to resist.

God Bless

 

[wabrams]

If you do not know the proper value of the 42, then you cannot know the proper value of the 1.31 million.

If you cannot understand the proper value of saving the truly defenseless and innocent, then you cannot know the proper value of the guilty.

 

[Super_Grover]

If you do not know the proper value of the 42, then you cannot know the proper value of the 1.31 million.

This sort of argument is very dangerous in that it asserts that the right to life is a zero sum game. That the lives of the few can be sacrificed for the lives of the many.

But the Catholic Church rejects such moral relativism:

To introduce the reality of the numbers is not relativism. And you have completely ignored the fact that babies (or fetuses?) are completely innocent, and that abortion is ALWAYS an unjust act of aggression. You assail my logic as relativism, but if I extend your logic, then I find one can ask the question, “If I cannot know the proper value of Ted Bundy’s life, then I cannot know the proper value of six million Jews exterminated.” That is true relativism. And who was arguing that the lives of the few can be sacrificed for the lives of the many? Where in the world are you getting that, seriously?

And let me offer an observation that is not advised for arguments in frosh philosophy courses, but is a valid observation, nonetheless. I am not blind to those who make these seamless garment arguments – those “sophisticates” who beat down the simple-minded pro-life folk for not having sufficient “consistency.” These are the social justice folks who I’ve seen time and again in our parishes and Newman Centers, who rail about School of the Americas, and depleted uranium munitions, and every other issue *du jour * while keeping the pro-life groups as contained as possible. They are also, almost invariably, Democrats. Now the Republicans have not done a wonderful job on abortion, but those who vote for a party with a pro-abortion platform tell me what I need to know about their “consistent ethic of life.” These are the same people who will judge everyone else, yet make “judge not lest ye be judged” arguments whenever anyone mentions the sacrilege of publicly pro-choice politicians who receive communion.

Yes, every Catholic should should seriously evaluate all teachings of the Church and some teachings simply cannot be rejected. The death penalty is a serious issue, and the Church’s position is strong, but it is not nearly on the level of the Church’s position on abortion. If you do not accept that you are not being honest. And those who try to neutralize pro-lifers by claiming they are inauthentic because they are not “consistent” enough are not, by and large, motivated by a charitable desire to bring such people in line with Church teachings. In my experience, most are pro-choicers or Catholic-chic lefties with a “social justice” brand, or both.

FrankAdams:

If your belief is that opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment and unjust war gives us greater moral authority, I politely disagree.

Of course I do not think that supporting capital punishment and unjust wars gives us greater moral authority on abortion. Where do these arguments come from for crying out loud?

If you are referring to the Iraq war, that is NOT a church teaching. This blurring of the level of authority of different Church pronouncements is yet another disingenuous tactic used by some of the social justice types. Two popes have expressed their disapproval of the Iraq war. These are two extremely well-formed consciences and their opinions on this matter should be seriously evaluated by Catholics, but no more than that. This is not an authoritative teaching of the Church, and it should not be portrayed as such. I have heard clergy try to equate these issues of Iraq, capital punishment, and abortion as on equal footing, and they are misleading their flocks. And talk about losing moral authority, one would be wise to not believe anything such a priest or nun preaches on moral issues without independently confirming it.

If you look at the 2007 document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, issued by the USCCB, usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
some of the points you raise about not merely dismissing other life issues are certainly there, and I would never seek to marginalize any life issue.

But look at page 13, paragraphs 27 and 28,
“Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity: The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.”

Contrast that to the next paragraph:
“The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war
crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues.”

Obviously the reference to abortion as “intrinsically evil” and “must always be opposed” is a much stronger statement than the one about the death penalty being a “not optional concern” and “urged to seriously consider Church teachings.”

That many Catholics are more repulsed by abortion than capital punishment is not only understandable, such a reaction flows naturally from the distinct teachings on the two institutions. Active pro-lifers who find that they cannot become as animated by the death penalty as abortion should nonetheless continue their work with confidence.

 

[SoCalRC]

If you cannot understand the proper value of saving the truly defenseless and innocent, then you cannot know the proper value of the guilty.

You seem to again be assuming that right to life must be a zero sum game. A condemned prisoner is defensely and utterly within the power of the state. Since the death penalty was reinstated, we have, from DNA evidence, multiple wrongful executions.

Consider Pope Stephen V’s comments from the 9th century:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old?” - Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz

Pope Stephen was making the point, how can you accept our teaching on abortion, but not understand the application to your flock’s practice of infanticide?

I would pose the same, how can one claim to value a small cluster of cells, to love it as one loves oneself, but then fail to see a fully formed human being as an equal child of God?

This seems even more relevant as our justice system continues to expand the death penalty. Last year it was minors, recently it was its use in non homicide crimes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You seem to again be assuming that right to life must be a zero sum game. A condemned prisoner is defensely and utterly within the power of the state. Since the death penalty was reinstated, we have, from DNA evidence, multiple wrongful executions.

.

But a murderer in prison is not utterly within the power of the state. I will say that I was as supportive of the death penalty as anyone else until Pope John Paul II said he believed cases in which it was necessary for the safety of society were “virtually nonexistent”. That truly did give me pause, even though the Church has always taught that the death penalty is permissible morally, given the right circumstances. Consequently, out of deference to JPII, and for that reason alone, I do not support the death penalty, nor do I condemn those who do.

“Virtually nonexistent”. That is a prudential judgment on JPII’s part. But it cannot simply be brushed aside. Manifestly, in the U.S., that’s not true. Indeed, it seems to be on the increase as gangs such as MS 13 and the Aryan Nations routinely order killings both inside and outside the prison walls, and nobody seems able to stop it, particularly those outside of prison. A powerful member of A.N. can order a “hit” outside, and it will almost certainly take place.

“Virtually nonexistent”. JPII is the Pope of all the world. Was he thinking about prisons in Europe, perhaps? Is the murder rate both inside and ordered outside prison “virtually nonexistent”? Was he aware of the Aryan Nations and MS 13 and others. I don’t know, and he didn’t tell us.

But, was he perhaps aware of it yet thought it was a failure of our particular system that the protection afforded by the death penalty is “virtually nonexistent”? Possibly he did. I am at least minimally aware of the conditions in high security prisons, and, while they seem awfully tight in security, manifestly they are not. How could we make them so in-prison murders and “hits” ordered from inside could not happen? And what about those murderers child rapists, torturers and the like who are released? Some are. Manifestly, some commit those crimes again. How do we deal with that?

Did JPII perhaps think more should be sentenced to life without parole rather than serve lengthy sentences then be released? Did he perhaps think we, as a society do not devote sufficient resources to containment, and that killings would be “virtually nonexistent” if we did? I don’t know, and he didn’t tell us.

Was he perhaps thinking about the very low recidivism rate among murderers? It is quite low. However, among some it is quite high. Did he think we have the means of distinguishing between the two so that we could confidently release or minimally guard the ones with the low rates and massively increase security for those with the higher rates? I don’t know.

One can dig and delve forever and never really know what JPII meant. One cannot know whether he simply didn’t know how things really are, or whether he was, in effect, telling us that with our resources we could do a virtually flawless job of protecting the innocent from the incorrigibly vicious if we just would. I’m a bit inclined to think the latter. But where to start? And in the meantime, such measures seem not to be on the radar screens of any politicians. Certainly, they don’t talk about what they would do to enhance security, stifle “inside/outside” gang activity, etc. And what do we do in the meantime while no one is really considering doing anything different about the circumstance in which murders can and do occur in prison and are ordered from prisons? Do we leave the innocent unprotected? Do we continue with capital punishment and try to work for better prison security?

I’m inclined to think the latter. In the meanwhile, knowing, as I do, that abortions will continue in vast numbers if certain politicians are true to their word, and further knowing that no candidate is presently intending to make prisons perfectly safe; neither those who oppose the death penalty nor those who favor it, it is plain to me that voting for an abortion-favoring candidate is a far greater evil than voting for a candidate who favors the death penalty for particularly dangerous killers. At this particular moment, not really knowing what was meant by “virtually nonexistent”, but knowing for sure that presently it is not “virtually nonexistent”, I cannot believe voting for the latter type of candidate is evil at all.

 

[vz71]

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?

Looks to me like you start with questioning if abortion should be a crime, and then move directly to the death penalty as the proposed punishment.
You then move on to “absolutely no reason to put a person to death” and some talk concerning Christianity being all about life and saving the soul. Thus Christianity should never put someone to death (the proposed consequence of the crime, abortion).

No straw man in my mind.

Then perhaps you should explain your original post.
You drew the connection where none need be, then you knocked it over. Looks grand, accomplishes nothing.

 

[vz71]

… And in some states some who have an abortion would be eligible for the death penalty.

A conclusion based upon no evidence on a hypothetical situation.

Your logic escapes me here. You appear to claim that were abortion a crime, death would be the punishment.
But there is no way to draw any type of conclusion on this.

That is the straw in your straw man. A conclusion that cannot be drawn, then knocked on with some rant against the death penalty.

 

[wabrams]

You seem to again be assuming that right to life must be a zero sum game. A condemned prisoner is defensely and utterly within the power of the state.

It is you who are making the assumption; I haven’t ever believed that life is a zero sum game. We all know what happens when you assume, don’t we?

Since the death penalty was reinstated, we have, from DNA evidence, multiple wrongful executions.

Which also means the convictions where the death penalty is applied should become more airtight with strong DNA evidence.

Consider Pope Stephen V’s comments from the 9th century:

Pope Stephen was making the point, how can you accept our teaching on abortion, but not understand the application to your flock’s practice of infanticide?

I would pose the same, how can one claim to value a small cluster of cells, to love it as one loves oneself, but then fail to see a fully formed human being as an equal child of God?

Just because you put someone to death for a crime of murder doesn’t mean you don’t see them as an equal child of God. Does the police officer who kills a suspect in the line of duty or a homeowner killing a homeinvader in the middle of the night not see them as children of God? I would home so, but they have a right to defend themselves just as the state has a to defend its citizens from the most dangerous in society.

This seems even more relevant as our justice system continues to expand the death penalty. Last year it was minors, recently it was its use in non homicide crimes.

So if a 16 or 17 year old commits a crime, is unremorseful, and is a threat, then in your mind, who cares? And what other non-homicide crimes are you refering to?

 

[frankadams]

One can dig and delve forever and never really know what JPII meant. One cannot know whether he simply didn’t know how things really are, or whether he was, in effect, telling us that with our resources we could do a virtually flawless job of protecting the innocent from the incorrigibly vicious if we just would. I’m a bit inclined to think the latter. But where to start? And in the meantime, such measures seem not to be on the radar screens of any politicians. Certainly, they don’t talk about what they would do to enhance security, stifle “inside/outside” gang activity, etc. And what do we do in the meantime while no one is really considering doing anything different about the circumstance in which murders can and do occur in prison and are ordered from prisons? Do we leave the innocent unprotected? Do we continue with capital punishment and try to work for better prison security?

I’m inclined to think the latter. In the meanwhile, knowing, as I do, that abortions will continue in vast numbers if certain politicians are true to their word, and further knowing that no candidate is presently intending to make prisons perfectly safe; neither those who oppose the death penalty nor those who favor it, it is plain to me that voting for an abortion-favoring candidate is a far greater evil than voting for a candidate who favors the death penalty for particularly dangerous killers. At this particular moment, not really knowing what was meant by “virtually nonexistent”, but knowing for sure that presently it is not “virtually nonexistent”, I cannot believe voting for the latter type of candidate is evil at all.

Well, when the Pope comes to America, gets in front of a microphone and says we need to abolish the death penalty, I don’t know how much more “digging” and “delving” we need to do. You have drawn the conclusion that he meant that “we continue with capital punishment and try to work for better prison security.” I have drawn the crazy conclusion that he meant we need to abolish the death penalty.

 

[SoCalRC]

And let me offer an observation that is not advised for arguments in frosh philosophy courses, but is a valid observation, nonetheless. I am not blind to those who make these seamless garment arguments – those “sophisticates” who beat down the simple-minded pro-life folk for not having sufficient “consistency.” These are the social justice folks who I’ve seen time and again in our parishes and Newman Centers, who rail about School of the Americas, and depleted uranium munitions, and every other issue *du jour * while keeping the pro-life groups as contained as possible. They are also, almost invariably, Democrats. Now the Republicans…

I’m not sure what your intent is here. Are you criticizing the Mother Church, or just your fellow parish members?

My quote about it being incoherent to isolate teachings is from a Doctrinal Note, from Rome, on the subject of voting.

Yes, every Catholic should should seriously evaluate all teachings of the Church and some teachings simply cannot be rejected.

Yes, try reading #4 in the Doctrinal Note I quoted above. It lists 9 ‘non negotiable’ moral principles with regards to political voting. It referes to them as “fundemental and inalienable rights”, the “essence of moral law”.

In Pope Benedict’s declaration on the Sacrament of Communion, he cites the same document and appears to indicate that voting against these nine moral principles renders a Catholic unworthy of communion.

I think that Catholics should be following all of them, but I don’t think in terms of Republican and Democrat, which seems to be a much bigger part of your world.

 

[SoCalRC]

“Virtually nonexistent”. That is a prudential judgment on JPII’s part. But it cannot simply be brushed aside. Manifestly, in the U.S., that’s not true. Indeed, it seems to be on the increase as gangs such as MS 13 and the Aryan Nations routinely order killings both inside and outside the prison walls, and nobody seems able to stop it, particularly those outside of prison. A powerful member of A.N. can order a “hit” outside, and it will almost certainly take place.

You seem to forget that the Church has local princes to help with the proper application of Church Doctrine. Here in the US, we even have an approved local Catechism: THE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS. It has a clear assessment of our use of capitol punishment, supported by direct Papal statement.

One can dig and delve forever and never really know what JPII meant.

We don’t have to guess, that is why we have Bishops here. We are not Protestants. Besides, it is hard to imagine the Pope being any clearer than when he stood here on US soil.

 

[bilop]

Well, when the Pope comes to America, gets in front of a microphone and says we need to abolish the death penalty, I don’t know how much more “digging” and “delving” we need to do. You have drawn the conclusion that he meant that “we continue with capital punishment and try to work for better prison security.” I have drawn the crazy conclusion that he meant we need to abolish the death penalty.

Yes, that is his opinion, and we should take it seriously, along with other learned opinions.

However, since he is speaking outside of his area of authority, we are not bound to agree with him.

It’s just like if the Pope said property taxes are too high in the U.S. Or, the government should fund Catholic Schools. Or, adultery should be a criminal offense.

We, as Catholics, would not be bound to agree with him.

The Church can not reverse the doctrine (going back to Augustine and Aquinas) that capital punishment is permissable when necessary to safeguard society, and that the decision on its application belong to competent civil authorities, not the Church.

See here for a good primer.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=15

God Bless

 

[Ender]

I was as supportive of the death penalty as anyone else until Pope John Paul II said he believed cases in which it was necessary for the safety of society were “virtually nonexistent”.

Your response to JPII’s statements is commendable, as is your recognition that those statements represent his prudential judgment and do not require a Catholic to assent to them. In my case, I do not.

The teaching in the Catechism is that the death penalty is not required in modern nations because it is not needed to defend society. That statement is debatable itself but the major problem with it is that it ignores the primary goal of punishment - which is not protection, but justice. In “*redress(ing) the disorder caused by the offense” *the state has not just the right but the obligation *“to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” *(CCC 2266) For some crimes the death penalty is the only punishment that meets those criteria.

This has been the consistent position of the Church and has been expressed by popes and doctors of the Church in support of executions from Paul VI back to the apostle Paul.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

Yes, that is his opinion, and we should take it seriously, along with other learned opinions.

However, since he is speaking outside of his area of authority, we are not bound to agree with him.

It’s just like if the Pope said property taxes are too high in the U.S. Or, the government should fund Catholic Schools. Or, adultery should be a criminal offense.

We, as Catholics, would not be bound to agree with him.

The Church can not reverse the doctrine (going back to Augustine and Aquinas) that capital punishment is permissable when necessary to safeguard society, and that the decision on its application belong to competent civil authorities, not the Church.

See here for a good primer.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=15

God Bless

]

Funny that the property taxes, the criminalization of adultery, and school funding didn’t make the Catechism. Look, go ahead and dismiss the Pope as just another “learned opinion.” You have the right. I give the Pope (and the Catechism’s) “opinons” considerably more weight.

 

[bilop]

]

Funny that the property taxes, the criminalization of adultery, and school funding didn’t make the Catechism. Look, go ahead and dismiss the Pope as just another “learned opinion.” You have the right. I give the Pope (and the Catechism’s) “opinons” considerably more weight.

That is your right. As long as you don’t say that other Catholics are obliged to agree with you.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Your response to JPII’s statements is commendable, as is your recognition that those statements represent his prudential judgment and do not require a Catholic to assent to them. In my case, I do not.

The teaching in the Catechism is that the death penalty is not required in modern nations because it is not needed to defend society. That statement is debatable itself but the major problem with it is that it ignores the primary goal of punishment - which is not protection, but justice. In “*redress(ing) the disorder caused by the offense” *the state has not just the right but the obligation *“to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” *(CCC 2266) For some crimes the death penalty is the only punishment that meets those criteria.

This has been the consistent position of the Church and has been expressed by popes and doctors of the Church in support of executions from Paul VI back to the apostle Paul.

Ender

Excellent Point!

God Bless

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, when the Pope comes to America, gets in front of a microphone and says we need to abolish the death penalty, I don’t know how much more “digging” and “delving” we need to do. You have drawn the conclusion that he meant that “we continue with capital punishment and try to work for better prison security.” I have drawn the crazy conclusion that he meant we need to abolish the death penalty.

Not disputing you, but I have not seen that particular quote. Would you reproduce it here for us?

Just curious, but would you vote for a candidate who favored the continuing legality of abortion because that candidate opposed the death penalty for first degree murder?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not disputing you, but I have not seen that particular quote. Would you reproduce it here for us?

Just curious, but would you vote for a candidate who favored the continuing legality of abortion because that candidate opposed the death penalty for first degree murder?

It’s all part of a smokescreen for those who want to justify voting for pro-abortion candidates.

The tactic is to pretend the pro-life candidate must be absolutely perfect, or else we are morally required to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.

That’s why I keep asking the same question, “Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter.”

I’ve lost count of the number of ways people have tried to avoid a simple yes or no answer to that question.

 

[frankadams]

That is your right. As long as you don’t say that other Catholics are obliged to agree with you.

God Bless

You are right. I will provide the announcement here…

Attention Catholics: you are free to dismiss papal, Vatican, USCCB and all other official Catholic statements on war and captial punishment as “opinion.” Feel free to support as many executions and unjust wars as you want. You are in no way obligated to agree with the Church on these life issues.

Have fun with it.