A
adrift
Guest
I had never heard of this letter. In trying to find this quote in it, I found it did not exist there but instead is in the Catechism
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Have a look at the pdf copy of “Ante Nicene Fathers” vol I at this link.
Amongst the collected works you will find works attributed to one “Mathetes.”
It is he who wrote the “Letter to Diognetus” from which the quote I provided below was taken (see p.80).
It is a very mysterious document, noone knows for sure exactly when it was written.
The original manuscript (or at least a very old copy) first surfaced in the 1500s and was mistakenly attributed to Justin Martyr. The text while ancient is unknown to any of the Fathers of the Church. This only known manuscript was itself destroyed in a fire in more recent times.
I had not noticed that the new CCC actually quoted exactly what I quoted below
. CCC footnote 46 makes clear it is exactly this document. High praise for a lost/unknown author/document.
M
mikekle
Guest
Even in cases of rape or incest God still has breathed life into that child though, people can get pregnant easily but it still requires God to breath life into the fetus, so if God chooses to do this, I cant see ANY pregnancy that could be aborted justifiably.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
My concern with this example is that extremist positions try to convince readers that the mother would always and everywhere be excommunicated with the daughter as well.
I believe that position is very difficult to make convincingly.
A case for mortal sin would be easier, but Excommunication LS as well … not so sure.
Certainly formal cooperation (she is OK with her daughters procured abortion) by a mother would incur Excommunication LS.
However I am not so sure about material cooperation - not even immediate material cooperation (I may be mistaken on that point) as I have found no Magisterial Documents yet that state this clearly wrt Ecommunication LS.
However, lets assume that some forms of material cooperation do involve Excommunication LS…
It would seem difficult to defend the position that there is no possible scenario whatsoever whereby a well known opposing mother may drive her daughter to the clinic without incurring Excommunication LS.
The usual moral theology example I have seen (that seems to gets uncritically altered by supporters of the definitely Excommunication LS approach) is of a friend (not a parent) who wishes to show personal support despite their opposition to abortion. Also, it appears assumed that the abortive mother needs them to get to the clinic.
I believe that the fact we are talking about the girl’s mother makes a significant difference.
Also, if it is clear that the daughter does not presently need to rely on the mother for either emotional support nor for transport to go through with the procured abortion…then there is a good case that can be made for the mother’s non-essential involvement.
In this situation I believe the mother may ask her daughter (say the day before) if she can take her to the Clinic appointment and if the daughter agrees do so (keeping this incident quiet so as not to cause scandal).
I believe being a mother provides a proportionate reason for doing so that a mere friend cannot engage. That reason may be to keep the mother-daughter relationship (which may well be in tatters if the mother is vehemently opposed) from completely falling apart so that the daughter, after the abortion, will still know there is a home/mother to come back to in the possible event that her world completely falls apart after the abortion.
While many may still disagree with the mother’s prudential wisdom in this scenario…I do not believe it can easily be called a frivolous scenario and that prudential decision-making in this set of circumstances is still “not even on the table”.
In which case a mother with a well formed conscience would in theory be able to decide in this way without mortal sin - let alone suffer the more difficult accusation of Excommunication LS.
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. Excommunication LS is one of the things about Catholic discipline that really bothers me. It seems like a way of avoiding the difficulty that ought to be inherent in excommunication. And folks on this forum use it as a club to beat out of the Church anyone with whom they disagree. It’s horrible.
Edwin
S
Starrsmother
Guest
This is a great discussion–but here’s the really hard part in the actual world: Sometimes of any two candidates, NEITHER really stands for Christian principles and BOTH may have certain beliefs that, as a Catholic, I disagree with completely. An example would be two candidates, both of whom support abortion but perhaps one at least supports other beliefs that are consistent with mine. Maybe one candidate supports abortion, but the second candidate not only supports abortion but same sex marriage as well! Certainly one can simply not vote–but that in itself is a sort of a vote–as what you ultimately are saying is that you realize and accept that one of the two will ultimately end up elected–and it will most likely be the one with the most secular support, in this day and age. Which usually means that the candidate with the most totally liberal views–who is pro-everything , against nothing and someone like, say, Nancy Pelosi, will be the obvious winner with no opposition–as that seems to be how society as a whole swings today. Usually, I just hold my nose–and vote. (sigh…)
A
Abu
Guest
**A BRIEF CATECHISM FOR CATHOLIC VOTERS Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D
Question on 03-11-2002 (EWTN):
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 03-11-2002: **
**‘8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life? **
As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.’
‘14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the least damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.’
tinyurl.com/kowdqhx
Pretentious obfuscating cannot clarify what Fr Stephen Torraco has identified. The reality is that helping a daughter to get to an abortion clinic for the purpose of an abortion would involve cooperation in evil. See abortion in CCC #2270 where every human life must be protected from the moment of conception, and direct abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law.
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14, 1965:
“…it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18) – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”
(18) See Rom 3. 8.
Cavalier posturing with the teaching of Christ through His Church is reprehensible.
Question on 03-11-2002 (EWTN):
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 03-11-2002: **
**‘8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life? **
As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.’
‘14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the least damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.’
tinyurl.com/kowdqhx
Pretentious obfuscating cannot clarify what Fr Stephen Torraco has identified. The reality is that helping a daughter to get to an abortion clinic for the purpose of an abortion would involve cooperation in evil. See abortion in CCC #2270 where every human life must be protected from the moment of conception, and direct abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law.
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14, 1965:
“…it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18) – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”
(18) See Rom 3. 8.
Cavalier posturing with the teaching of Christ through His Church is reprehensible.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Since your above comments I have tried to find something more pertinent from the Magisterium or Aquinas on this matter. I have found the following from Aquinas:
Aquinas ST I II, 96, a2. (Go here)*"Whether it belongs to human law to repress all vices?"
“…laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for…law should be “possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.”
Now … the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.”
“…human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.”
"The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. "*
So Thomas clearly states that Civil authority does not need to criminalise all grave vices. However he does distinguish the issue of the most serious vices and I would accept that abortion is akin to murder.
However even here he rests his conclusion on a prudential observation not on a Church Dogma or Doctrine. He states “…without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained.”
Clearly the final criterion of what vices should be criminalised and which should not is a still a prudential consequentialist/proportionalist judgement. Namely, whether or not the Nation’s common good (ultimately its own survival) is best served by this law at this time. That is, is the Nation more likely to survive, at this present point in time, by criminalising or not criminalising the vice (eg theft, abortion, prostitution) in question? And it is an evolving question the answer to which may change at different times in a Society’s life - dependent on the overall maturity of all its citizens the virtuous and barbarian all.
This is exactly what Moses did wrt Divorce (which Jesus abrogated in his own day when the People were more spiritually mature).
So while we may all agree that conditions are not so bad in the US of A (for example) that Civil War would erupt if the anti-abortion lobby got its way…that conclusion is still to be reached by means of a prudential judgement.
Cries of “abortion is intrinsically evil, end of story” would therefore not seem to actually be the fundamental underlying Catholic principle behind the Catholic Church’s official stance on this matter.
Further commentary on Aquinas’s seminal principles in this area can be had at this link here “Distinguishing Morality and Legality.” Some interesting quotes from this philosophical article are:*
“Aquinas accepts that positive law has a pedagogical function, but also recognizes the limitations inherent in a finite and fallen humanity.”
"Addressing the question of the law’s pedagogical function … Aquinas limits the applicability of this purpose: “The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil.” He goes on to provide a kind of prudential rule for how to determine what laws are good and bad. Some laws, he says, try to restrain vices that are beyond the ability of people to bear, and thus “the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still.”
*
L
Lapey
Guest
No disagreement from me. But the fact remains that there is the option if a person so chooses to vote for the lesser of two evils.
E
estesbob
Guest
The question is not is any abortion justifiable-the question is can a Catholic vote for someone who’s record on abortion is not perfect but is far better than his opponents. The answer is a resounding yes
E
estesbob
Guest
You can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is. the Church is pretty clear on this. Another example:
.Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2iMvnQvY6
Archbishop Charles Chaput
C
Contarini
Guest
No, the Church isn’t. Individual bishops have made their prudential judgment on these matters. What the Church teaches is that voting for a pro-choice candidate is remote material cooperation in an intrinsic evil, and is legitimate only if there are proportionate reasons. These reasons do not themselves have to do with abortion.
Edwin
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No such unambiguous statement of principle has ever been made as binding by the Church. Your example of Archbishop Charles Chaput is his own personal interpretation of the teachings. His view is not unanimous among the bishops. If this really is such a clear-cut teaching, then please answer the question I asked in post #62 which no one answered directly, and you answered only with your personal opinion.
E
estesbob
Guest
BUT they have given us guidance on what proportionate reasons are and ruled out war, the death penalty and the economy.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
In Archbishop Charles Chaput’s remarks that you quoted:
Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
He does not mention proportionate reasons. This quote is not a guide on deciding what proportionate reasons might be. He is exhorting the faithful to have the same passion about the issue of abortion as he does. Even the language he uses shows it is an appeal to our prudential judgement. Citing a comparison to an “Olympic event” would never happen in a treatise on dogma.
E
estesbob
Guest
So what do you think the proportionate reasons were that would have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The fact that you have switched from defending a general principle to defending a specific application of that principle shows that you recognize the issue is prudential, and prudential considerations about the politician you mentioned are exactly what you plan to use to support that particular application.
E
estesbob
Guest
Not at all-I have yet to have anyone tell me proportionate reasons for voting for a candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Again you are falling back to specific cases. A lot of politicians might be labelled “Pro-Choice” even though they don’t support unrestricted abortion on demand. You can’t use the extreme case to justify a general principle that is supposed to work in all cases.
- Status