Archbishop Chaput: Other moral issues not equivalent to abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stylteralmaldo said:
Which should evoke greater sense of outrage?:

A. Candidate that favors the ability of one person to murder a limited class of persons yet favors restrictions on artificial contraception.

B. Candidate that favors unrestricted access/promotion of artificial contraception (approx. 10,000,000 in number) yet is against the murder of anyone.

Candidate A favors 1 person to go to hell but the other favors 10,000,000 to go to hell?
Click to expand...
We stand for aborted children because of their own sake, not because their parents would go to hell for this!
 
Colorad007 said:
Bob,

I’m not really comfortable voting Republican, either. But what Chaput is saying, I think, is that you are simply wrong to support a green candidate over a pro-life one, even though protecting the environment is an authentically Catholic value. .
Click to expand...
What +Chaput stated was simply a paraphrase of what +JPII wrote in “Christifidelis Laici”
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
Click to expand...
There can be no right to health care, no right to education, no right to clean air, if there is no right to live in the first place.

Without that, any environmental issue, or really, any other issue at all, is, as +JPII noted, “false and illusory”
 
estesbob said:
I wish We still had him in the archdiocese of Denver!
Click to expand...
Agree,however a Shepard such as Archbishop Chaput is really needed in numerous dioceses.Have you checked out the website Courageous Priests?! AB Chaput,along with many similarly minded priests are listed.Really informative site.
 
JurisPrudens said:
We stand for aborted children because of their own sake, not because their parents would go to hell for this!
Click to expand...
My take is that it’s a “both/and”. We stand for aborted children and pray for those parents who are endangering their own souls through their actions.
 
ringil said:
Chaput expresses himself in one manner; Cupich and the Pope does another.

I believe they are both correct in their own way.
Click to expand...
Nope, Archbishop Cupich was not correct. He said that we should be equally outraged about joblessness as we are about abortion. That’s not Church teaching.
 
estesbob said:
#1
Click to expand...
Isn’t it amazing how useful the List is for identifying the excuses some will use to defy Church teaching on voting for pro-abortion candidates? You post it and then the excuses pop up right on cue.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
My take is that it’s a “both/and”. We stand for aborted children and pray for those parents who are endangering their own souls through their actions.
Click to expand...
Endangering one’s soul is that person’s problem, first and foremost.
 
estesbob said:
#1
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote, Bob. I wasn’t using Republican deficiencies in protecting life as a reason to vote for pro choice candidates. I was arguing that NEITHER party is especially deserving of support.
 
zz912 said:
Isn’t it amazing how useful the List is for identifying the excuses some will use to defy Church teaching on voting for pro-abortion candidates? You post it and then the excuses pop up right on cue.
Click to expand...
Who used it to justify voting for pro-abortion candidates? I haven’t seen anyone in this thread arguing for that.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Agree,however a Shepard such as Archbishop Chaput is really needed in numerous dioceses.Have you checked out the website Courageous Priests?! AB Chaput,along with many similarly minded priests are listed.Really informative site.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that website. I will check it out.
We need wise and courageous shepherds!
 
Colorad007 said:
Read what I wrote, Bob. I wasn’t using Republican deficiencies in protecting life as a reason to vote for pro choice candidates. I was arguing that NEITHER party is especially deserving of support.
Click to expand...
A distinction without a difference, And your premise is false to begin with. you need only look at what States like Texas and La have done to limit Abortion to know there is a HUGE difference between the parties on abortion. Did you examine the vote in Senate to defund Planned parenthood?. Only 3 republicans opposed it. No democrats supported it.
 
Windmill said:
Chaput is pulling the thread out of the seamless linen garment theory.
Click to expand...
Colorad007 said:
Thank God, too. The seamless garment, if by that you mean that abortion and, say, immigrant rights form a seamless moral garment of equal import, is truly a heresy.
Click to expand...
Even the recognized father of the seamless garment theory, Cardinal Bernardin, recognized the severity of abortion and prioritizing its opposition. From here:
Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence.

Cardinal Bernardin limited the scope of his seamless garment statement. And it seems that even to this day, nearly 16 years later, the seamless argument is panned as a moral equivalence argument. (Not saying you to are doing it. Only that we still see it being used, and you are right to acknowledge it.)
 
Colorad007 said:
Who used it to justify voting for pro-abortion candidates? I haven’t seen anyone in this thread arguing for that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any reference to this thread. Only that it has constantly been cited as justification. Go back to the threads in during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and you’ll see it there. There were a few people that constantly used it. Not sure if they are active anymore, but we may see in 2016. (Edit: And I’m sure we’ll see it again in 2016. Keep your eyes open! It will happen!)
 
Colorad007 said:
Read what I wrote, Bob. I wasn’t using Republican deficiencies in protecting life as a reason to vote for pro choice candidates. I was arguing that NEITHER party is especially deserving of support.
Click to expand...
Well you know right from the get go that the Democratic party platform pretty much lays waste to the Catholic non negotiables…abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and so-called homosexual “marriage” . And I’m pretty sure the Republican party platform does not include support an organization (PP) that does the kind of things we have seen on the recent videos let alone perform abortions. That should be your starting point.
 
estesbob said:
A distinction without a difference, And your premise is false to begin with. you need only look at what States like Texas and La have done to limit Abortion to know there is a HUGE difference between the parties on abortion. Did you examine the vote in Senate to defund Planned parenthood?. Only 3 republicans opposed it. No democrats supported it.
Click to expand...
It is a distinction with significant difference. Voting for a basically pro choice party simply because it professes to be marginally less pro choice than the other pro choice party is madness. The choice between two pro choice parties isn’t democracy. It is slavery, especially for.the babies who are denied.basic legal protections.

It is ironic that you use defunding Planned Paremthood as an example of Republican credibility on the issue. It was Republican leadership that refused to attach it to the highway bill as a rider because leadership didn’t want to jeopardize highway funding. Roads before babies, basically. Instead GOP leaders passed the highway bill and did the Planned Parenthood bill as a distinct bill, where they knew it couldn’t get cloture let alone a veto-proof majority.

The new “pro-life” Republican Congress is another example. It was Republicans who sunk, together with Democrats, the 20-week ban that was supposed to be a prop for the March for Life. They couldn’t pass it because Republican lawmakers bristled at the non-exception for rape and incest. A 20-week.ban, the hallmark of GOP pro life advocacy, would leave about 99% of all abortions untouched, by the way.

So, no, the Republican Party is not especially pro life. That doesn’t green light a vote for Democrats, but it should make you think long and hard before so enthusisastically supporting another pro choice party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top