Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[SoCalRC]

You think the letter and magisterial documents are in conflict?

No, I think the interpretation is in error. I generally agree with the interpretation of Jimmy Akins:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

In discussing the letter he interprets:

“This statement was a response to those who argue that if Communion should be withheld from politicians who dissent from the Church’s teaching on abortion, it then also should be withheld from politicians who disagree with John Paul II’s statements regarding the use of capital punishment or who approve of wars (such as the Iraq War) that the pontiff appears to oppose. Individuals on the other side of this debate maintain that, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, war and the death penalty are incommensurate with abortion.
…
Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case does not amount to dissent from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.”

This is the context and basic understanding of the letter I have, though I think that our obligation to submission to the Vicar of Christ’s will is understated (see the LUMEN GENTIUM). So, even though I consider most of the arguments made in the article to be seriously flawed (ex. unlike CCC 2309, CCC 2267 does not delegate final moral judgement, and juries are not charged with assessing the criteria in CCC 2267, etc.), our basic understanding of the context and the content of the letter is in agreement.

This interpretation, that the context is ‘rise to the level of CIC 915’, is fully compatible with Church doctrine.

The alternate interpretation, that it is ‘ok (and morally equivelent) to disagree with the Pope on important teachings’, would be at odds with the Dogmatic Contitution of the Church. That is why I find it doubtful.

 

[fix]

No, I think the interpretation is in error. I generally agree with the interpretation of Jimmy Akins:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

In discussing the letter he interprets:

This is the context and basic understanding of the letter I have, though I think that our obligation to submission to the Vicar of Christ’s will is understated (see the LUMEN GENTIUM). So, even though I consider most of the arguments made in the article to be seriously flawed (ex. unlike CCC 2309, CCC 2267 does not delegate final moral judgement, and juries are not charged with assessing the criteria in CCC 2267, etc.), our basic understanding of the context and the content of the letter is in agreement.

This interpretation, that the context is ‘rise to the level of CIC 915’, is fully compatible with Church doctrine.

The alternate interpretation, that it is ‘ok (and morally equivelent) to disagree with the Pope on important teachings’, would be at odds with the Dogmatic Contitution of the Church. That is why I find it doubtful.

So, you accept that the Cardinal was/is correct when he said it is not contrary to Church teaching to hold differing views on the DP and the war. Good.

It does not “rise” to 915 because it is morally licit to hold such views.

 

[SoCalRC]

Here ya go:

Could you highlight the part of the Catechism that permits compromise on right to life? It seems to me that it is referred to as a moral absolute (as it is in the documents I cited). That is my position, you are the one arguing for compromise.

 

[SoCalRC]

So, you accept that the Cardinal was/is correct when he said it is not contrary to Church teaching to hold differing views on the DP and the war. Good.

It does not “rise” to 915 because it is morally licit to hold such views.

I accept the words stated, that the disagreement, in of itself, does not justify withholding Holy Communion from such Catholics…

But I cannot accept “not contrary to Church teaching”, because I cannot find any point in the letter that says so. He notes that teachings have different moral weight. That would indicate that they are all teachings. He even states that they are all important.

That is, no where in the letter does it argue that the theoretical Catholics are not out of sync with Rome, it only expresses an opinion on rather or not the disagreement represents the most grievous form of dissent.

This would seem to be confirmed by Benedict’s Papal exhortation on communion, which seems to indicate that those same Catholics should not present themselves for communion. But this brings back the same question I always raise, why are we arguing about a letter, from a different context, when we have writing from the same person as Pope, on the exact subject at hand?

I think it is because snippets of the letter are easier to fit to a preconceived belief. No one wants to say, ‘sure it is the Pope, but I disagree’. Easier to try to redefine Catholic teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Could you highlight the part of the Catechism that permits compromise on right to life? It seems to me that it is referred to as a moral absolute (as it is in the documents I cited). That is my position, you are the one arguing for compromise.

You have a vivid imagination!

It’s up to you to show the Church forbids us to vote for a candidate who isn’t perfect on life issues, and commands us to vote instead for pro-abortion candidates.

 

[SoCalRC]

You have a vivid imagination!

It’s up to you to show the Church forbids us to vote for a candidate who isn’t perfect on life issues, and commands us to vote instead for pro-abortion candidates.

I have, many times. From the Vatican, to the Lay Faithful, on voting:

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

"In this context “limiting the harm”], 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.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…

Abortion is listed along with eight other examples. The phrase “moral principles that do not admit of excption, compromise or derogation” means ‘non negotiable’. The paragraph before makes it clear that the concept of “limiting the harm” (introduced just prior) does not apply (“the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility… what is at stake is the essence of the moral law…”)

The document was prepared by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF. It was approved by Pope John Paul II, who introduced the concept of “limiting the harm” (in EVANGELIUM VITAE), so certainly knows what he meant.

As pope, Benedict has cited the document in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS:

“Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232).”

The Church is clear. The above is in keeping with the Catechism you quoted (moral absolute). Comprimising non negotiable moral principles is what Pope Benedict refers to as “moral relativism”, “the major evil facing the church”.

‘Showing’ you has never been the problem. I’ve even offered to go through the documents a sentence at a time to make sure the words are understood. As always, it is ‘Following’ the Church which is the challenge.

 

[Amolibri]

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

How about the value of a broken system—in which many are wrongly convicted. (see CBS’s 60 min. for exonerated prisoners). Look into the face of the man who served 27 years and tell me your numbers.

Thank you for all your well taken points, frankadams & SoCal!
www.nyadp.org

 

[frankadams]

How about the value of a broken system—in which many are wrongly convicted. (see CBS’s 60 min. for exonerated prisoners). Look into the face of the man who served 27 years and tell me your numbers.

Good luck trying to debate this aspect of the issue here. Most of your opponents enthusiastically support the death penalty. Their main concern seems to be whether or not it is morally licit to disagree with the Catholic position on capital punishment and dismssing contemporary Catholic teaching on capital punishment as “opinion.” To them, it likely does not matter whether we execute a dozen innocents a year or hundreds of innocents a year. Look over the posts, and you will find that their overriding mantra is “We must agree with the Church on abortion, but we may disagree with the Church on capital punishment and war.” And thus, they do agree with the Church on abortion and do disagree with the Church on capital punishment and war.

For the record, I happen to agree with the Church on all three issues, even though I am not “obligated” to do so.

By the way, thanks for your encouragment. And, like you, I will also add my gratitude to SoCal for being more articulate, thorough, and well-reasoned about these issues than I have managed to be.

 

[SoCalRC]

How about the value of a broken system—in which many are wrongly convicted. (see CBS’s 60 min. for exonerated prisoners). Look into the face of the man who served 27 years and tell me your numbers.

Thank you for all your well taken points, frankadams & SoCal!
www.nyadp.org

Actually, I just realized that I had not even properly answered Vern’s taunt in the post just prior. The proper answer would have been “Why would I prove that? It is nothing I have ever claimed is licit or nec.”

But I read him as saying that the burden of proof was on me, I missed him slipping a false presentation of my position into the question.

I actually find the ‘controversy’ unfathomable. If one professes that ‘right to life’ is an absolute, that trumps all other Catholic values, what is the logic in then steadfastly arguing that the Church’s teachings about life are too broad and that even abortion must be compromised on?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by vern humphrey

You have a vivid imagination!

It’s up to you to show the Church forbids us to vote for a candidate who isn’t perfect on life issues, and commands us to vote instead for pro-abortion candidates.

I have, many times.

There you have it, in his own words – a claim that the Church forbids us to vote for a candidate who isn’t perfect on life issues, and commands us to vote instead for pro-abortion candidates.

 

[SoCalRC]

And thus, they do agree with the Church on abortion and do disagree with the Church on capital punishment and war.

As I just posted above, the part I struggle with comprehending at all is that, even on abortion, they do not nec. agree with the Church. Notice the ongoing debate about compromise being licit.

The fundemental problem seems to be that faith in earthly political constructs is very, very strong. Notice that it is always framed ‘either/or’, ‘Republican/Democrat’. The idea that one could choose to stand wholly with the Church, even at the expense of US political power (such as we have as individuals) is dismissed as absurd, or even identified as ‘the problem’.

This actually seems backwards to me, since it has the political constructs of man fixed and the laws of God mutable. But I guess it all comes down to where one’s faith and loyalities lie.

By the way, thanks for your encouragment. And, like you, I will also add my gratitude to SoCal for being more articulate, thorough, and well-reasoned about these issues than I have managed to be.

I actually think that your succinct answers are often clearer, though I also often doubt that either of us are really being heard. I tend to quote the Church a lot because I am, Catholic wise, probably best described as ‘very conservative’ (for example, I do feel obligated to religiously submit to the mind and will of the Pope on all three issues).

Obviously, many Catholics are more comfortable disobeying the Pope on various matters than I (for example, contraception). And I do not think that creates any meaningful moral distinction between us. But it does continue to surprise my most repeated message ‘follow the Church’ is so strongly objected to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I just posted above, the part I struggle with comprehending at all is that, even on abortion, they do not nec. agree with the Church. Notice the ongoing debate about compromise being licit.

So far as I know, you are the only person to claim the Church requires us to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if the opposing candidate isn’t perfect.

 

[fix]

I accept the words stated, that the disagreement, in of itself, does not justify withholding Holy Communion from such Catholics…

It does not justify because it is not sinful, dissent, or immoral. When Does the Church compromise on moral principles?

But I cannot accept “not contrary to Church teaching”, because I cannot find any point in the letter that says so. He notes that teachings have different moral weight. That would indicate that they are all teachings. He even states that they are all important.

Then read it again:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

That is, no where in the letter does it argue that the theoretical Catholics are not out of sync with Rome, it only expresses an opinion on rather or not the disagreement represents the most grievous form of dissent.

This is untrue. The letter does not say it is dissent to support the war or DP. That is your twist.

This would seem to be confirmed by Benedict’s Papal exhortation on communion, which seems to indicate that those same Catholics should not present themselves for communion. But this brings back the same question I always raise, why are we arguing about a letter, from a different context, when we have writing from the same person as Pope, on the exact subject at hand?

Because you make his letter contrary to Church teaching when it in fact supports it and clarifies concrete issues.

I think it is because snippets of the letter are easier to fit to a preconceived belief. No one wants to say, ‘sure it is the Pope, but I disagree’. Easier to try to redefine Catholic teaching.

You need to reconcile the letter and Catholic teaching with the mind of the Church, not your personal agenda.

 

[SoCalRC]

There you have it, in his own words – a claim that the Church forbids us to vote for a candidate who isn’t perfect on life issues, and commands us to vote instead for pro-abortion candidates.

As I noted in the post just prior to yours, I mistook your question for an honest one. That is, simply that you were placing the burden of proof for my position on abortion being non negotiable on me.

Even though you have a long history of making false and inflammatory claims against me (much as you have invented false statistics and then steadfastly refused to admit doing so when caught), I really do take the Faith seriously. The Catechism instructs me to always try to view your words and actions in the most favorable light.

Viewed honestly, the only thing we have is me saying that abortion is “non negotiable”, compromise can directly effect one’s suitability for the Sacrament of Communion.

You profess that abortion can be compromised, because the alternative would be, gasp not voting for a viable candidate. The Church only instructs us not to compromise on the “essence of moral law”. ‘Unless it means that I can’t vote for my candidate…’ is a caveat added solely by you.

 

[bilop]

I actually think that your succinct answers are often clearer, though I also often doubt that either of us are really being heard. I tend to quote the Church a lot because I am, Catholic wise, probably best described as ‘very conservative’ (for example, I do feel obligated to religiously submit to the mind and will of the Pope on all three issues).

Obviously, many Catholics are more comfortable disobeying the Pope on various matters than I (for example, contraception). And I do not think that creates any meaningful moral distinction between us. But it does continue to surprise my most repeated message ‘follow the Church’ is so strongly objected to.

Again, you are making the same mistake. As a Catholic, you are required to submit to the Pope on Abortion, on Euthanasia, on Contraception, on the Sunday Obligation etc., b/c they are clear, continuous teachings of the ordinary Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.

You are not required to submit on the death penalty. No obedience has been called for. Likewise on questions of just war.

There is no disobedience here.

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

As I noted in the post just prior to yours, I mistook your question for an honest one. That is, simply that you were placing the burden of proof for my position on abortion being non negotiable on me.

You said what you said – do you now disavow that statement?

 

[SoCalRC]

You need to reconcile the letter and Catholic teaching with the mind of the Church, not your personal agenda.

You are confused. The letter is not an official document, it is a leaked one, never acknowledged. I need only reconcile my interpretation with official Church doctrine, not contectual hearsay.

Look at SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

“Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232).”

It cites the Doctrinal Note. This is POPE Benedict, addressing the lay faithful in his official capacity, on the Eucharist and, again, political activity.

Now, who is ‘pursuing an agenda’, the person pointing to the Church, or the person trying to twist justification from a letter from a Cardinal taken out of context?

 

[frankadams]

Again, you are making the same mistake. As a Catholic, you are required to submit to the Pope on Abortion, on Euthanasia, on Contraception, on the Sunday Obligation etc., b/c they are clear, continuous teachings of the ordinary Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.

You are not required to submit on the death penalty. No obedience has been called for. Likewise on questions of just war.

There is no disobedience here.

God Bless

Your point has been made clear. You can gleefully disagree with Mother Church on life issues like war and capital punishment and still remain in full communion with Rome. We get it.

It is same attitude I tended to have during my school years–“Do I have to know this for a test? No? Then I won’t. Do I have to agree with the Church on these very important life issues? No? Then I won’t.”

Personally, I have taken the position of agreeing with the Church on all her teachings on life. This apparently puts me at odds with the vast majority of those on this thread.

 

[Nino]

No…When Jesus was on the cross,the so called good thief was forgiven by Himself but Jesus did not then yell down at the executioners and declare “hey fellas,I forgive this chap,so you must also!” When a bartender gives an obvious drunk another drink for the road and that poor soul goes out and kills a bunch oif other innocent poor souls,the bartender is guilt oif aiding and abetting…if you on a jury, let this confessed murderer go to prison and he kills a prison guard,daddy of 3 etc…who then is to fault…you are for you let the bum go to prison,eat three square meals a day ,have clean clothing,read books…a roof over his head…hey,this is better then 17% of the worlds population!.Abortion by the temporary host,is murder…thats why it has always been condemned in all civilized societies…america is no longer such a nation and killing a developing baby is considered to be noble and a worthwhile choice…no wonder the establishment hands us such three presidential candidates as we see…they have no respect for us…hey who said that first?

 

[fix]

You are confused. The letter is not an official document, it is a leaked one, never acknowledged. I need only reconcile my interpretation with official Church doctrine, not contectual hearsay.

No confusion. But, at least you admit the letter contradicts your erroneous interpretation of Church teaching.

Look at SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS

It cites the Doctrinal Note. This is POPE Benedict, addressing the lay faithful in his official capacity, on the Eucharist and, again, political activity.

Now, who is ‘pursuing an agenda’, the person pointing to the Church, or the person trying to twist justification from a letter from a Cardinal taken out of context?

How does that contradict the letter?

As for the agenda let all who read decide.

In the end it is the same old story. Attempt to bind where the Church does not bind. I wonder why one would want to do that?