Bishop: I beg Mr Biden to repent of his dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion & marriage for his own salvation & for the good of our nation

[fredystairs]

fredystairs:

That is the next logical step.

I don’t think so. Pro-choice people are usually quite reasonable. They just believe differently. I don’t know any that are in favor of murder (which is a legal term), or ever would be.

Abortion is murder, so…

 

[JMMJ]

Well, yes, that is the “pro-life” view.

 

[Rau]

I’d support that if Rome denied communion to all Catholics who used contraception, had no problem with ssm, were living in a partnership which was not marriage, didn’t attend Mass and would accept abortions in some circumstances.

Fred, “Rome” requires Catholics to deny themselves when they have sinned gravely. Priests may only deny in case of manifest (publicly evident) grave sin.

 

[JimG]

That is the next logical step. And once one agrees with abortion, there is no logical refutation.

Yes, if it’s ok to kill a Down Syndrome child before birth, the same reason would apply after birth.

 

[JMMJ]

No no no. Personhood matters to pro-choice people. Your average pro-choicer doesn’t see it the way you say they do.

Do you spend much time really trying to find out what they believe, and why?

 

[Rau]

Personhood

What is that, if it is not simply to be a human being?

 

[JMMJ]

There are many threads which already discuss personhood. One as recent as the last week or so. If I am not mistaken, I believe you participated in the conversation there. I don’t think it is a good use of my time to rehash that debate, as others stated the facts just fine at that time.

 

[Kei]

countries with more liberal abortion laws tend to have fewer abortions

Do you have a good source for this (keep in mind that they may not have full numbers; in the US, for instance, multiple states don’t report their numbers, and then you have the definition issue)? That is indeed a bold claim. Does it compare nations with strict laws with loose, or where it is outlawed with no laws regarding it? Etc.
But what is your source for this? This is an interesting claim.

 

[Rau]

There are many threads which already discuss personhood. One as recent as the last week or so. If I am not mistaken, I believe you participated in the conversation there.

The question was deflected and ducked. No answer could be offered to the simple question: “What is the difference between my young offspring and a human being?” There is of course no difference.

Beware of confusing “what people believe” from “what people tell themselves”.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I ask you to try to see it through the eyes of faithful Catholics, and the best analogy might be for it to be legal (and taxpayer-funded!) to euthanize an infant up to three months (or more) after birth, with “extreme cases” admitting of infant euthanasia up to nine months after birth — in other words, put a mirror up to the time line of Roe v Wade .

I can see it from that perspective. But the underlying problem is that such an analogy makes no sense if you do not think (as most people seem not to in many (most?) societies) that a pre-viable fetus is a human being with human rights. To those who do not accept that, the analogy is like that made by some vegans that ‘meat is murder’. If you accept their premise about the equality of rights of all vertebrates, it makes perfect sense. If you don’t you eat your burger.

I don’t have figures on what exactly constitutes “many” or “most”, but I do know that there are different schools of thought on the matter.

I think we could do a lot worse, than to begin a national conversation on the matter, and acknowledge that different people see the same matter — the status of an unborn conceived entity at various stages of development — differently, sometimes radically differently. I would like to see both sides be very, very honest, and willing to face reality, about precisely what that UCE looks like at stage X, stage Y, stage Z, and be willing to understand why “the other side” either sees UCEs at these various stages to be human, only potentially human, or what have you. I don’t think that conversation has ever even begun to take place — instead, pro-choice people see pro-lifers as appalling oppressors of women and opponents of personal liberty, and pro-life people see pro-choicers as baby murderers. As long as we have that black/white dichotomy, no dialogue can ever take place.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Throwing the switch that changes the train’s course is not intrinsically evil. I have never found this to be a particularly difficult dilemma — better to allow one to die, than to allow several to die — but others do.

Best not to make this statement. The actor is not “allowing”. The morality of pointing the trolley at the innocent bystanders is the essence of the debate.

I think the statement is fine the way it is. Sins of omission are still sins. The trolley is pointed at innocent bystanders regardless of which course it takes, the only question, is it just one bystander, or is it many bystanders? If I fail to influence an inexorable chain of events (the train cannot be stopped, only redirected) in a way that would take only one life, and instead, by omission, allow a chain of events to take place that takes many lives — when those are my only two choices — then, to my mind, I am guilty of those more-than-just-one lives that need not have been lost. It is the same as a pilot either allowing a plane to crash into a crowded football stadium, or redirecting the plane — which is going to crash no matter what — into a cornfield where a farmer is tending his crops on a tractor, and will perish when I have to crash the plane (which, incidentally, will also kill me, as I cannot eject in either case).

Again, it’s not my intention to analyze the trolley dilemma — that has been done time and again, both on CAF and on other websites both religious and secular, and that information is readily available — just to answer the objection.

 

[Rau]

Again, it’s not my intention to analyze the trolley dilemma

And yet you have just attempted an analysis! concluding it was OK to kill those not involved.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Again, it’s not my intention to analyze the trolley dilemma

And yet you have just attempted an analysis!

Just answered the objection, and kept it as short and sweet as I could. Much ink and electrons have been spilled, going around in circles on this dilemma, and there’s not much I can add to it.

And, no, it’s not “okay”, so much as it is inevitable.

 

[Mr_Richie]

I do not believe that Biden truly believes in Catholic teaching. He believes in himself.

 

[fredystairs]

I do not believe that Biden truly believes in Catholic teaching. He believes in himself.

Or whatever is popular at the time.

Pax

 

[Rau]

And, no, it’s not “okay”, so much as it is inevitable .

That’s scary - Yikes!!!

 

[hadulzo]

Amen, Amen, Amen.

 

[Freddy]

I would like to see both sides be very, very honest, and willing to face reality, about precisely what that UCE looks like at stage X, stage Y, stage Z, and be willing to understand why “the other side” either sees UCEs at these various stages to be human, only potentially human, or what have you. I don’t think that conversation has ever even begun to take place — instead, pro-choice people see pro-lifers as appalling oppressors of women and opponents of personal liberty, and pro-life people see pro-choicers as baby murderers. As long as we have that black/white dichotomy, no dialogue can ever take place.

It’s monstrously difficult. As you say, there are no grey areas allowed. One side of the argument is: It’s a human being from the very moment of conception onwards. Which literally means that there is no room for debate. @Rau mentioned the thread which stalled at the point where it was argued that a few cells after conception is described as a ‘human being’ as a matter of scientific fact. As opposed to being obviously human. I left the thread for a few days saying I’d call back to see if anyone could show me any scientific literature that confirms that view (I’ll do so shortly).

But I’m extremely wary of entering into these discussions. Emotions run high and I’ve been flagged more times than I’d like. As I said, there’s no room to manouvre as there aren’t any positions other than ‘you are wrong’. I can’t ever recall at any time in countless similar threads anyone saying anything remotely like ‘I understand your position but I completely disagree with it’. And getting anyone to understand why people can feel that abortion in some cases is acceptable is the only aim.

If you know why people can have abortions then it’s surely a step in the right direction to reduce the numbers.

 

[Freddy]

FiveLinden:

The problem is that because countries with more liberal abortion laws tend to have fewer abortions you are really sending the trolley towards the greater number of victims in order to hold the principle that there should be a law against being the victim of a trolley (to over-extend the metaphor).

It seems counter-intuitive that more liberal abortion laws lead to fewer abortions, but if that’s the fact of the matter, so be it. But I am not about to advocate making all abortions legal, much less endorse the taxpayer having to pay for them, in hopes of “making matters better”. I ask you to try to see it through the eyes of faithful Catholics, and the best analogy might be for it to be legal (and taxpayer-funded!) to euthanize an infant up to three months (or more) after birth, with “extreme cases” admitting of infant euthanasia up to nine months after birth — in other words, put a mirror up to the time line of Roe v Wade.

HomeschoolDad:

Spiritual appeals such as this, may be the only thing we have left. All other bishops need to follow Bishop Strickland’s lead.

And Biden should be denied communion by all US bishops, regardless of whether he is the president of the United States. This could be very powerful — a “High Noon” moment, if you will.

I’d support that if Rome denied communion to all Catholics who used contraception, had no problem with ssm, were living in a partnership which was not marriage, didn’t attend Mass and would accept abortions in some circumstances.

According to traditional, orthodox Catholic doctrine, all of these things already do bar the potential recipient from receiving communion.

The underlying point is that all those Catholics who have no problem with contraception etc (and let’s face it, it’s a significant number) would have no problem in accepting Biden’s views on the same matters and wouldn’t consider those views to be a reason not to vote for him.

 

[AlNg]

The trolley is pointed at innocent bystanders regardless of which course it takes, the only question, is it just one bystander, or is it many bystanders? If I fail to influence an inexorable chain of events (the train cannot be stopped, only redirected) in a way that would take only one life, and instead, by omission, allow a chain of events to take place that takes many lives — when those are my only two choices — then, to my mind, I am guilty of those more-than-just-one lives that need not have been lost.

Suppose that the one life on the other track was your mother. And the five on the other side were prisoners. Would you pull the switch to kill your mother? You are saving 5 lives that way.