Is Father Newman correct?

[rwoehmke]

Take a look at the Freedom of Choice Act (which Obama has made a priority) and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (which Obama was the lone senator to oppose) and tell us again that he is not committed to infanticide.
.

Reread my comments. No where did I say that Obama was not committed to abortion as a free choice. He obviously is and has so stated, but the other candidate and party have given a lot of lip service and only minor relief, if any, from this plague. Thirty-five years since Roe v. Wade and I have seen no major effort by either party to overturn it.

I am almost certain Obama will attempt to force abortion down everyone’s throats. The true test of the Bishops and the Pro-Life forces will be seen in how well they will respond to this blatant attempt to force the issue once and for all. In short its going to be like the crisis in a fatal disease has finally arrived and this country either dies or returns to health. I did not vote for Obama with the hope of bringing this about, but it is a reasonable scenario for the near future.

 

[PJM]

In his letter, Father Newman says:

Link

Is he correct? Does he have any basis?

REPLY:

Perhaps. We can only know for certain IF we know there motives. Where they aware of what they were doing, after having been taught the RCC position on the issue.

And if taught and ignored (for ANY reason) Yes, they they did commit Mortal sin.

How very sad, I know Satan CAN’T win, but I wonder if he’s winning in the present hour? Dear God have mercy on us!

PJM m.c.

 

[Teflon93]

Reread my comments. No where did I say that Obama was not committed to abortion as a free choice. He obviously is and has so stated, but the other candidate and party have given a lot of lip service and only minor relief, if any, from this plague. Thirty-five years since Roe v. Wade and I have seen no major effort by either party to overturn it.

I am almost certain Obama will attempt to force abortion down everyone’s throats. The true test of the Bishops and the Pro-Life forces will be seen in how well they will respond to this blatant attempt to force the issue once and for all. In short its going to be like the crisis in a fatal disease has finally arrived and this country either dies or returns to health. I did not vote for Obama with the hope of bringing this about, but it is a reasonable scenario for the near future.

Well, you’ll excuse me for pointing out the illogic here.

There are 3 Supreme Court justices who will retire in Obama’s 1st term—Stevens, Breyer or Souter, and Ginsberg.

By voting for Obama, you and others have ensured that there will not be enough pro-life votes on the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in our generation.

As strategy, that wasn’t very clever, was it?

Unfortunately, the only way to get abortion back to the states where it can be eliminated is by overturning Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. That can only be done through the Supreme Court. The Republicans have more than done their part—Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are pro-life. Kennedy and Souter essentially lied on their job applications. Kennedy is a disgrace because he’s Catholic and did so.

If you wanted a fight on abortion, McCain picking a pro-life Supreme Court nominee was the way to wage it.

Now, we’ll be lucky if Catholic hospitals and doctors get to stay in business without having to provide abortions.

 

[AgingCatholic]

What I found so surprisng about reading this thread is how few people picked up the implications of actually applying Fr. Newman’s reasoning consistantly. By dismissing the USCCB’s position on the concepts of proportionate reasons and limiting the harm, Newman was actually making all of his flock that had voted for a major party presidential candidate unfit for communion.

Neither McCain nor Palin held public positions on abortion which are in full keeping with the Catholic church. So all major party candidate voters had to accept some form of intrinsic evil. Arguing that one level of complicency with intrinsic evil is rightous, while another evil, is hypocritical at best. At worst it is deeply heretical, since it presumes knowledge of God’s will with certainty.

Now that the heirarchy has, correctly, corrected Newman’s flock, should the thread now be labeled “Are the Protestants Right?” We profess to believe in an apostolic church each week, but if we think that only applies when the Church says what we want to hear…

 

[Teflon93]

What I found so surprisng about reading this thread is how few people picked up the implications of actually applying Fr. Newman’s reasoning consistantly. By dismissing the USCCB’s position on the concepts of proportionate reasons and limiting the harm, Newman was actually making all of his flock that had voted for a major party presidential candidate unfit for communion.

Neither McCain nor Palin held public positions on abortion which are in full keeping with the Catholic church. So all major party candidate voters had to accept some form of intrinsic evil. Arguing that one level of complicency with intrinsic evil is rightous, while another evil, is hypocritical at best. At worst it is deeply heretical, since it presumes knowledge of God’s will with certainty.

Now that the heirarchy has, correctly, corrected Newman’s flock, should the thread now be labeled “Are the Protestants Right?” We profess to believe in an apostolic church each week, but if we think that only applies when the Church says what we want to hear…

You’ll have to provide evidence of either McCain or Palin being out of synch with Catholic teaching on abortion.

The Church likewise teaches against relativism of the sort you employ here. Kindly show us where your position is supported below:

The Catechism:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[Teflon93]

In sum, while the Church may allow us some leeway in choosing the lesser of two evils, it does not allow us to choose the GREATER of two evils, much less cling to some bogus standard that the only standard is complete perfection and anything short of that means Catholics can vote any way they see fit, conscience (and Christ) no obstacle.

Again, if someone’s conscience simply is immune to infanticide, then replace the word “abortion” with “slavery” in your argument and you can find the moral position by analogy.

 

[AgingCatholic]

That can only be done through the Supreme Court. The Republicans have more than done their part—Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are pro-life.

In addition to appearing judgemental, this seems a to be a bit of a leap of faith. Take Scalia, he is inarguably conservative, but he is at odds with Rome on a number of key pro-life issues, including abortion. Remember, in Carhart he noted that he might well have overturned the partial birth abortion ban if the issue of the Commerce Claus of the Constitution had been raised.

Alito and Roberts have also been on the wrong side of Catholic life issues several times already. As far as abortion, we have only Carhart, where they applied Casey. Call me old fashioned, but I’d prefer to see tanglible evidence of someone pursuing Catholic pro life principles before I give them credit.

The problem is that role of a Supreme Court justice is to uphold the secular constitution. Only a small percentage of Americans are in true agreement with the Church on abortion, so we have incredibly difficulty getting that opinion reflected in democratic rule (notice that both McCain and Palin held unacceptable positions on the matter). Attempting to circumvent the broadly held will of the people through the courts requires extreme judicial activism. This, in turn, requires generally ill suited jurists.

We are supposed to be living examples of the word of God. If we are going to insist on accepting evil ourselves, then we should not be surprised if our arguments about abortion as an absolute fall on deaf ears. Unless you want to create a theocracy, the best way to change the situation is to help everyone grow in their understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person.

Attempting to impose one’s will by corrupting the judicial system just erodes moral credibility. As imperfect as it is, the courts are our primary mechanism for protecting the individual from the tyranny of the state. If we distort that protection, even for a laudable goal, we have no legitimacy as a nation in the eyes of God.

 

[AgingCatholic]

In sum, while the Church may allow us some leeway in choosing the lesser of two evils, it does not allow us to choose the GREATER of two evils, much less cling to some bogus standard that the only standard is complete perfection and anything short of that means Catholics can vote any way they see fit, conscience (and Christ) no obstacle.

Again, if someone’s conscience simply is immune to infanticide, then replace the word “abortion” with “slavery” in your argument and you can find the moral position by analogy.

Are you declaring that you can judge the greater of two evils infallibly?

Only God has the capacity to fully embrace our right to life teaching. We cannot love infinately. 4000 children die each day for want of 2 buckets of clean water, do you mourn them as you would your own child?

We must each answer the absolute certainty of our moral conscience. The Catechism tells us that to do otherwise is certain damnation. But it also states that we must never forget the fallibilty of our own moral conscience. If you are proclaiming that your own assessments of relative evil are infallibly correct, then you are assuming a role left soley for God.

Perhaps you have a great love for the unborn. If so, this is good. But the love that others may feel for those victims of war, or extreme poverty, is good too. Instead of arguing whose love is greater or more just, you would do well to follow the advice given to the dutiful son in the parable of the Prodigal one, rejoice at the others steps towards salvation and grow in love together.

 

[Odell]

My priest just this sunday said that he had seen this priest on the news and said he checked with our bishop and told the congregation that our bishop said this is false and those who voted for obama can take communion he said father Newman was out on his own on this one

Now I live in the diocese of Raleigh and know we have a very orthadox bishop I would like to know if this conversation even took place?

 

[sodak]

I believe that Fr. Newman was 100% correct, and should be supported. I applaud him, and added him to my prayer list. If only all the Catholics in this country had his spine!

 

[Teflon93]

In addition to appearing judgemental, this seems a to be a bit of a leap of faith. Take Scalia, he is inarguably conservative, but he is at odds with Rome on a number of key pro-life issues, including abortion. Remember, in Carhart he noted that he might well have overturned the partial birth abortion ban if the issue of the Commerce Claus of the Constitution had been raised.

Alito and Roberts have also been on the wrong side of Catholic life issues several times already. As far as abortion, we have only Carhart, where they applied Casey. Call me old fashioned, but I’d prefer to see tanglible evidence of someone pursuing Catholic pro life principles before I give them credit.

This is a fair point, but surely you would concede that they have been more in line with Catholic teaching than Anthony Kennedy? Not to mention Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stephens?

The problem is that role of a Supreme Court justice is to uphold the secular constitution. Only a small percentage of Americans are in true agreement with the Church on abortion, so we have incredibly difficulty getting that opinion reflected in democratic rule (notice that both McCain and Palin held unacceptable positions on the matter). Attempting to circumvent the broadly held will of the people through the courts requires extreme judicial activism. This, in turn, requires generally ill suited jurists.

And yet that is precisely what was done with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Abortion on demand (the status quo today) has NEVER held a majority in American public opinion.

Should be harder to overturn than it was to install in light of that.

We are supposed to be living examples of the word of God. If we are going to insist on accepting evil ourselves, then we should not be surprised if our arguments about abortion as an absolute fall on deaf ears. Unless you want to create a theocracy, the best way to change the situation is to help everyone grow in their understanding of the inalienable rights of the human person.

And electing radically pro-abortion politicians to high political office does this how?

The Catholic vote means precisely nothing if we vote in lockstep with the rest of the population, as we did this election. What influence have we then?

Attempting to impose one’s will by corrupting the judicial system just erodes moral credibility. As imperfect as it is, the courts are our primary mechanism for protecting the individual from the tyranny of the state. If we distort that protection, even for a laudable goal, we have no legitimacy as a nation in the eyes of God.

That was the problem with Roe and Doe.

That is the problem with the abortion litmus test in the Democrat Party.

It is the problem with Democrats refusing to even consider Bush nominees because they prefer empty judicial seats to a judiciary harder to corrupt through the extraConstitutional judicial activism of the Left.

The same arguments now employed very weakly by the “shut up about abortion already” crowd have a nasty historical precedent—the same rationale was applied to Dred Scott.

As I say, if your own conscience is not pricked by the plight of those slaughtered in utero, then substitute “slavery” and see if you’d be arguing to maintain Dred Scott until enough Virginians miraculously agreed that slavery was wrong. I suspect you wouldn’t, being a good person sensitive to the dignity and rights of others.

We must clear away the debris from the 70s and 80s on abortion. We have to defend life against the assault which the Obama administration is readying.

Would you agree, Aging Catholic, that it would be a terrible evil for Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to be forced to perform abortions?

 

[RobHom]

So lets see even if we put: “not even a failed attempt” on one side of the scale it still beats the hecks out of a promise to make sure folks have the right to kill as many babies as they feel are inconvienient.

Chuck

Chuck,

The reality of this situation is this:

Absolutely nothing has been done in the past 8 years. Nothing! Hard core right wing rhetoric is of zero value.

I find it somewhat amazing that right wing people are acting like socialists…expecting and even demanding the “government” fix all the problems.

What happened to grass roots activism… What happened to helping those in need. Why not commit the funds wasted on so called political lobbyists and hacks to helping, supporting, and giving actual financial and moral support to the people that considering abortion.

 

[Teflon93]

Are you declaring that you can judge the greater of two evils infallibly?

Not at all. But infallibility is not required when one candidate has made the extension of abortion to Catholic hospitals his cause (Obama), when one candidate has a perfect rating from NARAL (Obama), and when one candidate cast the sole vote in the Senate against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Obama).

By your standard, AC, we would vote for Stalin because economic growth through industrialization might help the kulaks.

Let’s not pretend that the McCain/Obama choice on abortion wasn’t the starkest there has been on the issue in our lifetimes.

Only God has the capacity to fully embrace our right to life teaching. We cannot love infinately. 4000 children die each day for want of 2 buckets of clean water, do you mourn them as you would your own child?

Well, they’ll have a better shot at clean water if only we slay in utero sufficient children to get demand down—is that the thinking?

I’m a stats guy—shall we compare abortion deaths to those?

Shall we likewise discuss the moral difference between actively seeking someone’s murder and not doing “enough” — however measured — to prevent it?

Or are you forwarding a “It’s God’s problem, not ours” argument?

Hint: no one is morally responsible for the death of someone else through natural conditions, and yet someone—usually at least two people—are morally responsible for every abortion procured. That is why canon law excommunicates them on the spot, AC. Do you disagree with this?

We must each answer the absolute certainty of our moral conscience. The Catechism tells us that to do otherwise is certain damnation. But it also states that we must never forget the fallibilty of our own moral conscience. If you are proclaiming that your own assessments of relative evil are infallibly correct, then you are assuming a role left soley for God.

It is not my moral conscience, but the judgment of the Church. What do you make of the Catechism passages I quoted you?

Perhaps you have a great love for the unborn. If so, this is good. But the love that others may feel for those victims of war, or extreme poverty, is good too. Instead of arguing whose love is greater or more just, you would do well to follow the advice given to the dutiful son in the parable of the Prodigal one, rejoice at the others steps towards salvation and grow in love together.

You should follow the Church, which makes clear that on the issue of abortion EVERY abortion is intrinsically evil. It is not morally equivalent to just war doctrine (there is NO just abortion), nor social justice.

In this, beware becoming the prodigal yourself, AC, for rejecting the clear teaching of the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

Chuck,

The reality of this situation is this:

Absolutely nothing has been done in the past 8 years. Nothing! Hard core right wing rhetoric is of zero value.

I find it somewhat amazing that right wing people are acting like socialists…expecting and even demanding the “government” fix all the problems.

What happened to grass roots activism… What happened to helping those in need. Why not commit the funds wasted on so called political lobbyists and hacks to helping, supporting, and giving actual financial and moral support to the people that considering abortion.

Nothing?

There are now 4 pro-life judges on the Supreme Court.

Perhaps if those who hate the right wing so much that they countenance the Left’s lust for infanticide would have voted for the pro-life candidate, there would have been a Supreme Court majority to overturn the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, the Dred Scott decision of our times.

Grassroots can only accomplish so much when federal law has been subsumed. There has never been an American majority in favor of universal abortion on demand and yet that is what Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton established in 1973.

Good luck on social justice when you hitch your wagon to infanticide. Who can believe anything you say about concern for the little person when the slaughter of the littlest means nothing to you?

 

[Teflon93]

Perhaps the best grassroots campaign is to put the Catechism in the hands of every Catholic and ask them to read it.

Father Newman clearly has. His critics simply skip to the “good” parts.

 

[AgingCatholic]

This is a fair point, but surely you would concede that they have been more in line with Catholic teaching than Anthony Kennedy? Not to mention Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stephens?

Actually, no. They are often at great odds with the Church, particularly when the side with economic interest or expansion of governmental powers at the expense of the individual. Take the Indiana Voter ID decision, there was no evidence of actual fraud, but we know that the law cost a dozen elderly nuns their civic voice.

I would say that, in generaly, they are more in line with Evangelical Protestant thinking that Catholic Dogma - though that is to be expected, Roberts and Alito were almost certainly chosen for the expansive views on executive power than anything else.

 

[AgingCatholic]

Not at all. But infallibility is not required when one candidate has made the extension of abortion to Catholic hospitals his cause (Obama), when one candidate has a perfect rating from NARAL (Obama), and when one candidate cast the sole vote in the Senate against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Obama).

factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I am not going to be party to propogating falsehoods and half truths against anyone. Even someone I disagree with as much as Senator Obama. As Pope John Paul pointed out, our obligation to the 8th commandment is particularly important in public life.

I’m a stats guy—shall we compare abortion deaths to those?

You are confusing a numerical argument for a moral one. Fetal tissue was used in the development of a number of critically important vaccines. One could try to argue that millions of lives saved was worth the loss of a few. But the Catholic church holds that each life has infinite value, so simple numerical comparisons become meaningless. A milliion times infinity is no greater than three times infinity.

Trying to argue voting as a strictly numerical issue is also somewhat dishonest. From a strictly metric point of view, voting for George Bush vs. John Kerry made zero difference in actual abortions. In fact, abortion rates, the most telling metric, dropped faster and farther under pro-abortion Bill Clinton. Add the fact that the one thing that the Roe, Casey, and Carhart decisions have in common was that they were all made by GOP majority appointee courts, and one could make the honest numerical argument that the best way to reduce abortions is to vote Democratic.

But, as Catholics, the ends do not always justify the means. Just as we cannot justify destroying fetal life for better vaccines, etc., we can’t just take any path to lower abortions. For example, we could not support pro-contraception policies, because that is also sinful. But, since we care about the morality of the solution, it is also dishonest (and morally perilous) to proclaim that a position like McCains is not intrinsically evil.

No honest person would use the same argument for any other serious moral dilema. For example, you would not proclaim that your defrocked priest was ‘pro-child’ because he abused fewer children than another. And proportionate reasons requires that complicency be remote.

For better or worse, many people vote tangible reality. Spreading poverty, and hungry children we can count, is real:

msnbc.msn.com/id/27771447

Believing that voting GOP, even when that requires compromise on the principle of abortion, will lower abortions, is purely an act of faith. You have your beliefs, others look at thirty years of evidence to the contrary.

Remember, it requries the concepts of proportionate reasons and limiting the harm to make a vote for someone like John McCain potentially licit, if you use the principles yourself, but then object to their use by others, it raises serious questions about your acceptance of the principles, and your own awareness of the infallibility of your own moral conscience.

 

[DebChris]

Not according to the Archdiocese of Charleston, under whose authority Fr. Newman falls.

I went to the St. Mary’s Catholic Church website yesterday to check the story out, and Fr. Newman had a statement that he had been misquoted by the Associated Press. When I went back today to double-check Fr.'s response, his statement was not there, but this was.

It’s a link to the Archdiocese and a formal statement about communion and an individual’s conscience. (I’d quote it here, but I can’t cut and paste from a PDF format.)

We don’t want overlook this part of the archbishop’s letter:

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

Senator McCain made a gracious concession speech. We have only one president at a time and we are called as citizens to respect the office, even if we disagree with stated policies.
We are called to pray for our leadership. Accepting that Barack Obama is likewise a praying person, and that prayer is about changing the prayer, not God, then we can trust that God will work on the president elect’s heart.
The strongest weapon we have against evil is prayer.
It is time to join Senator McCain and the bishops in congratulating our new president, and to pray for God to be the guiding force behind the difficult decisions our new president will be making.

 

[Teflon93]

factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I am not going to be party to propogating falsehoods and half truths against anyone.

You’ll have to point out the falsehood to me, AC. What’s NARAL’s rating for Obama? Did he or did he not oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act?

You are confusing a numerical argument for a moral one. Fetal tissue was used in the development of a number of critically important vaccines.

Name them and provide evidence.

You are the one who tried to argue that 4,000 child deaths a week (no evidence provided for that either) justified somehow voting for the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history, who was quoted during the campaign as saying he didn’t “want my daughter punished with a baby.”

If you wish to make such numerical comparisons, you need to know the number of abortions per week. Google the Guttmacher Institute; you’ll find the data at that pro-abortion site.

You back away because your argument is weak on the numbers, just as it is on the morality. And that’s before we consider the lack of moral agency in dirty water vs. abortion—at least two people are conspiring to kill a child in every abortion: the abortionist and the mother of the child.

Trying to argue voting as a strictly numerical issue is also somewhat dishonest. From a strictly metric point of view, voting for George Bush vs. John Kerry made zero difference in actual abortions. In fact, abortion rates, the most telling metric, dropped faster and farther under pro-abortion Bill Clinton. Add the fact that the one thing that the Roe, Casey, and Carhart decisions have in common was that they were all made by GOP majority appointee courts, and one could make the honest numerical argument that the best way to reduce abortions is to vote Democratic.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. Provide the evidence. Otherwise, it’s just pro-abortion propaganda. As you’ve already been corrected on Catholic teaching (my, how quickly you dropped the Catechism and backed away!), you don’t have the credibility to make such claims without evidence. Let’s see it.

But, as Catholics, the ends do not always justify the means. Just as we cannot justify destroying fetal life for better vaccines, etc., we can’t just take any path to lower abortions. For example, we could not support pro-contraception policies, because that is also sinful. But, since we care about the morality of the solution, it is also dishonest (and morally perilous) to proclaim that a position like McCains is not intrinsically evil.

Yes, happy talk surrounding your claim now that it was McCain’s position which was “intrinsically evil”. Which must have been why those brave American bishops came out in favor of McCain’s position—perhaps they were “intrinsically evil” too.

Although Occam’s Razor would have it that you simply reject Church teaching and lack the candor to say so.

No honest person would use the same argument for any other serious moral dilema. For example, you would not proclaim that your defrocked priest was ‘pro-child’ because he abused fewer children than another. And proportionate reasons requires that complicency be remote.

So now I’m dishonest, eh?

We use these analogies all the time. Perhaps every time the Left invokes argumentum ad Hitlerum they are being fundamentally dishonest?

But nice way to shoehorn in the sexual abuse scandal, AC. Do you simply despise the Church?

For better or worse, many people vote tangible reality. Spreading poverty, and hungry children we can count, is real:

msnbc.msn.com/id/27771447

Red herring. As Ronald Reagan noted in 1964, poverty in America could have been eliminated had the federal government simply sent checks out for $4,600 to every family below the $3,000 poverty line (est 1963). Instead, the Democrats established a bureaucracy which consumed $4,000 per poverty-stricken family, resulting in them receiving only $600.

44 years later, poverty remains. But you won’t grade Democrat failure in the area of social justice by the same standard as alleged Republican failure on abortion, will you? Should Democrats abandon anti-poverty programs since 44 years and trillions of dollars wasted later, poverty’s still here?

Believing that voting GOP, even when that requires compromise on the principle of abortion, will lower abortions, is purely an act of faith. You have your beliefs, others look at thirty years of evidence to the contrary.

Others ignore clear Church teaching in support of Democrat Mammon. Others also apparently do not comprehend that “compromise” and “surrender” are not synonyms. By embracing Obama and his radical proabortion cohort, you have surrendered.

What will you say when the abortion rate goes up as a result of Obama’s policies?

Remember, it requries the concepts of proportionate reasons and limiting the harm to make a vote for someone like John McCain potentially licit, if you use the principles yourself, but then object to their use by others, it raises serious questions about your acceptance of the principles, and your own awareness of the infallibility of your own moral conscience.

AC, you must be a lawyer because you cannot make an argument.

It requires no such thing to vote for John McCain. If Hitler ran against Martin Luther, one could certainly take the latter’s anti-Semitism over the former’s. Luther didn’t establish death camps.

Let’s not pretend to moral obtuseness. If you reject the Church’s teaching on abortion, say so. That would be the honest thing to do.

 

[Teflon93]

As for who’s telling the truth on Obama’s abortion position, please see the National Right To Life Committee’s well-documented response here:

nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Truth.html

Note that FactCheck.org is affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center. If “Annenberg” is familiar, it is probably due to the Annenberg Challenge, the board of which Barack Obama sat on with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers for some 7 years.

Both were established by Walter H. Annenberg.