CSB Statement on "Catholics who support Gestational Legislation"

[classified01]

What are your thoughts?

rcav.org/uploadedFiles/gestational%20statement.pdf

 

[Dale_M]

It is a statement issued by Archbishop J. Michael Miller, who oversees the the Archdiocese of Vancouver. Although he belongs to the the Congregation of St. Basil, and puts the initials CSB after his name, I don’t think he is speaking on behalf of his religious order.

In the statement, Archbishop Miller cites Pope John Paul II who said that working for legislation which limits the availability of abortion is morally permitted. The archbishop goes on to say that such legislation shouldn’t necessarily be the goal of Catholics since it implicitly accepts the availability of abortion.

I think Archbishop Miller is saying that support or opposition to such legislation is one of prudential judgment. Personally, I am of the opinion that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good. Legislation which limits a harm is better than allowing the harm to proceed unchecked. But as the archbishop notes, the stopgap measure shouldn’t be the final goal.

 

[Hokomai]

There are two things here of interest to me.

First, there is an interesting use of words which obscures what I assume to be the underlying intent. The former Canadian law criminalized women who had abortions. The Archbishop talks about ‘criminalizing abortion’. Does he want to go back to threatening women who seek abortions with imprisonment if they succeed?

Second there is the massively high demand he places on Catholic politicians. They must make known their absolute opposition to all abortions - presumably including, for example, in the case of a 12-year old rape victim whose life is threatened by the pregnancy. I do not think he will get many signing up. The extreme nature of the Catholic position, and the demand that the law must be brought into conformity with it, undermines Church influence on this issue.

 

[Dale_M]

Hokomai, I agree that the archbishop is laying a burden on Catholic politicians. Or rather, he is pointing out a burden those politicians should already have been carrying. Since politicians are in the public eye, and since they shape public opinions, Catholic politicians should be clear that they support Catholic teaching. I don’t think Archbishop Miller is saying that Catholic politicians need to speak out on every abortion case or ever nuance of Catholic teaching. But he is saying that politicians who identify as Catholic need to avoid giving scandal. It is morally okay for a Catholic politician to support legislation which would restrict abortions to the first two trimesters, but that politician needs to be clear that the proposed law is inadequate. The politician needs to be on record, somewhere, that more restrictive laws will be necessary at a later date…

Is that an impossible burden for Catholic politicians? I don’t know. I can see how it might make election more difficult in some districts. But surely the voters of those districts would oppose the Church’s position and pressure their legislator (Catholic or not) to support permissive abortion laws. In that situation, is it wise for a Catholic politician to compromise his moral beliefs and substitute instead the moral beliefs of his constituents?

As for your question about criminalizing women who receive abortions, I don’t think the archbishop addressed that issue. I don’t think that such a proposal is a requirement of Catholic teaching.

 

[Hokomai]

Is that an impossible burden for Catholic politicians? I don’t know. I can see how it might make election more difficult in some districts. But surely the voters of those districts would oppose the Church’s position and pressure their legislator (Catholic or not) to support permissive abortion laws. In that situation, is it wise for a Catholic politician to compromise his moral beliefs and substitute instead the moral beliefs of his constituents?

Dale I think that if a politician wants to be elected, the Archbishop has given really, really bad advice. The Catholic view is at one extreme of all views which could be taken of abortion, and extends to denying abortions to children who are victims of rape, to women whose lives are threatened, and denying some forms of contraception because they may possibly have effect after cells begin to divide. No politicians in any numbers can win if they make it clear that given the opportunity they would legislate such things. The Church would do better to abandon its attemots to hold back the tide of legislation (or in Canada’s case, no legislation), and stick to trying to win people to its point of view. Somehow I think it is more persuasive to say: “I don’t think you should abort” than “I don’t think you should abort and if I could I would use the power of the state to stop you, or punish you if you did”. Such a change could not possibly be worse politics than the campaign the Church has run up until now, which has led to defeat and legal abortion almost everywhere.

 

[JaKael02]

Dale I think that if a politician wants to be elected, the Archbishop has given really, really bad advice. The Catholic view is at one extreme of all views which could be taken of abortion, and extends to denying abortions to children who are victims of rape, to women whose lives are threatened, and denying some forms of contraception because they may possibly have effect after cells begin to divide. No politicians in any numbers can win if they make it clear that given the opportunity they would legislate such things. The Church would do better to abandon its attemots to hold back the tide of legislation (or in Canada’s case, no legislation), and stick to trying to win people to its point of view. Somehow I think it is more persuasive to say: “I don’t think you should abort” than “I don’t think you should abort and if I could I would use the power of the state to stop you, or punish you if you did”. Such a change could not possibly be worse politics than the campaign the Church has run up until now, which has led to defeat and legal abortion almost everywhere.

Hokomai - are you pro-abortion or pro-life? I assume your pro-abortion in cases of rape? Just curious. Thank you. Kindly.

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai - are you pro-abortion or pro-life? I assume your pro-abortion in cases of rape? Just curious. Thank you. Kindly.

I support access to legal and safe abortion procedures. I also support the availability of scientific information about fetal development and support, through the state, for all children and mothers. I support high levels of state funding of care for disabled children and support cultural changes to make adoption easier and more aceptable. I also support free access to contraception and sex education, and active support for young people who choose not to bave sex, but with education to ensure they know their options if they change their mind.

 

[DCNBILL]

There are two things here of interest to me.

First, there is an interesting use of words which obscures what I assume to be the underlying intent. The former Canadian law criminalized women who had abortions. The Archbishop talks about ‘criminalizing abortion’. Does he want to go back to threatening women who seek abortions with imprisonment if they succeed?

Second there is the massively high demand he places on Catholic politicians. They must make known their absolute opposition to all abortions - presumably including, for example, in the case of a 12-year old rape victim whose life is threatened by the pregnancy. I do not think he will get many signing up. The extreme nature of the Catholic position, and the demand that the law must be brought into conformity with it, undermines Church influence on this issue.

Please provide documentation for this statement

 

[JaKael02]

I support access to legal and safe abortion procedures. I also support the availability of scientific information about fetal development and support, through the state, for all children and mothers. I support high levels of state funding of care for disabled children and support cultural changes to make adoption easier and more aceptable. I also support free access to contraception and sex education, and active support for young people who choose not to bave sex, but with education to ensure they know their options if they change their mind.

Okay, thank you for responding.

 

[Hokomai]

Please provide documentation for this statement

I am not sure that documentation is needed - it is implicit or explicit in every Catholic official statement about abortion and the law. Has the Church ever supported (as distinct from ‘kept quiet about’ a law which allowed abortions for children who are victims of rape? I know the answer" it has not. I give the Church full marks for consistency. Given the political opportunity the Church would encourage politicians to ban every type of abortion except those in which the fetus died as a secondary and proportionate consequence of a procedure aimed at another, good, end. If you really do not accept that this is true I suppose I could do the Googling for you, but I have never been in any doubt about the Church’s position. As the statement which triggered the thread indicates, support for any law which allows any abortion is done purely as a tactic to limit the number of abortions, and not because the church accepts that anyone should be allowed a direct abortion, even in extreme cases.

 

[Hokomai]

Okay, thank you for responding.

I should have added that I accept that abortion involves the killing of a human being, and that the fetus does have rights, including a right to live and develop; but that this right, in early pregnancy is not almost absolute as it is for born human beings. I think this right develops as the fetus grows, and gets closer to absolute the closer birth comes. For this reason I think of all abortions as negative and undesirable, although I have no problem with an end justifying the means. I understand the differences between my position and the Catholic position.

 

[OU812]

I should have added that I accept that abortion involves the killing of a human being, and that the fetus does have rights, including a right to live and develop; but that this right, in early pregnancy is not almost absolute as it is for born human beings. I think this right develops as the fetus grows, and gets closer to absolute the closer birth comes.** For this reason I think of all abortions as negative and undesirable,** although I have no problem with an end justifying the means. I understand the differences between my position and the Catholic position.

How can you say, on one hand, that fetuses have rights and the right to develop, and then, on the other, say it’s not absolute? It only magnifies when you state all abortions are negative and undesirable.

 

[Hokomai]

How can you say, on one hand, that fetuses have rights and the right to develop, and then, on the other, say it’s not absolute? It only magnifies when you state all abortions are negative and undesirable.

Because not all rights are absolute. Sometimes they should be weighed against other rights. if you believe, as Catholics do, that the end never justifies the means, it is reasonable to say that - for example - a raped child should not be given the morning after pill. But most people will disagree, because they do not think absolutes make for commonsense decisions that strengthen society. there is more than one moral framework, and some others are as consistent within themselves as the Catholic moral framework.

 

[DCNBILL]

I am not sure that documentation is needed - it is implicit or explicit in every Catholic official statement about abortion and the law. Has the Church ever supported (as distinct from ‘kept quiet about’ a law which allowed abortions for children who are victims of rape? I know the answer" it has not. I give the Church full marks for consistency. Given the political opportunity the Church would encourage politicians to ban every type of abortion except those in which the fetus died as a secondary and proportionate consequence of a procedure aimed at another, good, end. If you really do not accept that this is true I suppose I could do the Googling for you, but I have never been in any doubt about the Church’s position. As the statement which triggered the thread indicates, support for any law which allows any abortion is done purely as a tactic to limit the number of abortions, and not because the church accepts that anyone should be allowed a direct abortion, even in extreme cases.

If one makes an assertion that the Church “demands that law must be brought into conformity with it,” then one must be ready to supply proof thereof. Claimed “implicit or explicit” musings on statements by the Church are nothing but a matter of opinion and an uninformed one at that. I would recommend that a serious study of what the Church actually teaches be undertaken here, I am sure that you will be very surprised at what the Church is actually about in contrast to what you think that the Church is about.

 

[JaKael02]

I should have added that I accept that abortion involves the killing of a human being, and that the fetus does have rights, including a right to live and develop; but that this right, in early pregnancy is not almost absolute as it is for born human beings. I think this right develops as the fetus grows, and gets closer to absolute the closer birth comes. For this reason I think of all abortions as negative and undesirable, although I have no problem with an end justifying the means. I understand the differences between my position and the Catholic position.

Do you adhere to a point in development in which the fetus has enough rights not to be aborted? Or does that depend upon the circumstances of each individual case?

Given you do not ahere to a supreme being that places a moral code on each human and granted us human rights. From your perspective, how are “rights” granted or obtained? Is it strictly cultural? Majority? I’m just curious b/c I’ve never had this discussion with an atheist before.

Kindly. james

 

[Hokomai]

Do you adhere to a point in development in which the fetus has enough rights not to be aborted? Or does that depend upon the circumstances of each individual case?

Given you do not ahere to a supreme being that places a moral code on each human and granted us human rights. From your perspective, how are “rights” granted or obtained? Is it strictly cultural? Majority? I’m just curious b/c I’ve never had this discussion with an atheist before.

Kindly. james

1. no. I think every situation is different. 2) Rights are accorded to people by other people. There is a good consensus on some rights, no so good on others. We need to keep working on some. Fetal rights, rights to enter other countries, animal rights, rights of future generations are all examples of rights we are still debating. I understand that this is very much not the Catholic position, but the Church has been influenced by these debates.