Kennedy dispute reveals divide among Catholics over duties of politicians on abortion issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fitz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think that Kennedy has been formally excommunicated. Some decades ago, Leander Perez was excommunicated by a Louisiana archbishop for his opposition to desegregation of Catholic schools. So the conflict between Catholic faith and politics is not new.

There really is a divide, though. Catholics in the Doug Kmiec, Patrick Kennedy branch of the Church consider that abortion is less important as an issue than progressive social policies. But the Church has generally considered life issues such as abortion to be of paramount importance.

It is not so much that Kennedy thinks that abortion should not be illegal. It is rather that he and his political family have used their considerable political clout to preserve and protect abortion rights. Had he taken the same position with respect to preservation of the right to segregated education, the situation would be similar.
 
I think you can think that the bishops are wrong about something, yet still be in good standing with the Church. Where you cross the line is when you openly call out the bishops, which is something Kennedy did. I am active in adult faith formation and have a real problem with holy days of obligation. My diocese has them all, but the one next to the west has almost none. When I am teaching I have no place advocating anything except what my bishop teaches.
 
JimG said:
I don’t think that Kennedy has been formally excommunicated. Some decades ago, Leander Perez was excommunicated by a Louisiana archbishop for his opposition to desegregation of Catholic schools. So the conflict between Catholic faith and politics is not new.

There really is a divide, though. Catholics in the Doug Kmiec, Patrick Kennedy branch of the Church consider that abortion is less important as an issue than progressive social policies. But the Church has generally considered life issues such as abortion to be of paramount importance.

It is not so much that Kennedy thinks that abortion should not be illegal. It is rather that he and his political family have used their considerable political clout to preserve and protect abortion rights. Had he taken the same position with respect to preservation of the right to segregated education, the situation would be similar.
Click to expand...
When a Kennedy does not necessarily practice abortion, he wants to preserve it for others. I call that racist since a very high percentage of the babies aborted are minority. It is a new and accepted form of racism, or genocide. Not acceptable to me of course, and the Kennedy’s better wise up. In the very near future the minorities will wise up and call them out for their form of racism.
 
This is simply seeing a not-at-all new situation through a contemporary political filter.

There have always been Catholics who seek to evade some aspect of the Church’s teachings, and there always will be this side of eternity. But merely because it is possible to place one part of the Church on one side of a political issue, and another part of it on the other (and perhaps another part somewhere else, and so on) does not imply a “divide” in the sense that secular ink slingers use to sell papers.

The Church is not governed by public opinion or popular vote, but by the deposit of the faith made manifest through the teaching of the Magisterium. Human frailty and failings do not constitute a divide when the degree of adherence isn’t a constant among parts of the faithful.

Newspapers and newswriters approach everything as if it were a matter of politics. It isn’t, even when politicians are involved.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Fitz said:
When a Kennedy does not necessarily practice abortion, he wants to preserve it for others. I call that racist since a very high percentage of the babies aborted are minority. It is a new and accepted form of racism, or genocide. Not acceptable to me of course, and the Kennedy’s better wise up. In the very near future the minorities will wise up and call them out for their form of racism.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here. It has surprised me that minorities have continued to support the party that supports their genocide through abortion.
 
Our sheperds are protecting us. Pure and simple. We are all scandalized when an openly pro-abortion politician takes Communion. It waters down our Faith and what it stands for. Good for this Bishop! I will pray for him, and all our Bishops.
 
Fitz said:
When a Kennedy does not necessarily practice abortion, he wants to preserve it for others. I call that racist since a very high percentage of the babies aborted are minority. It is a new and accepted form of racism, or genocide. Not acceptable to me of course, and the Kennedy’s better wise up. In the very near future the minorities will wise up and call them out for their form of racism.
Click to expand...
I call it murder…
 
When the secular press trumpets supposed divisions among Catholics, all I see them report on are those who either have faulty understandings or are in open rebellion against the Church. In either case, real Catholics see no ‘divisions.’ A division implies equality, while those who are Catholic in name only do not qualify as real Catholics.
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
This is simply seeing a not-at-all new situation through a contemporary political filter.

There have always been Catholics who seek to evade some aspect of the Church’s teachings, and there always will be this side of eternity. But merely because it is possible to place one part of the Church on one side of a political issue, and another part of it on the other (and perhaps another part somewhere else, and so on) does not imply a “divide” in the sense that secular ink slingers use to sell papers.

The Church is not governed by public opinion or popular vote, but by the deposit of the faith made manifest through the teaching of the Magisterium. Human frailty and failings do not constitute a divide when the degree of adherence isn’t a constant among parts of the faithful.

Newspapers and newswriters approach everything as if it were a matter of politics. It isn’t, even when politicians are involved.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
Well written.
 
I’ve not bothered to check of Kennedy’s actual statements on abortion or his votes.

As a Catholic he is bound to believe abortion is morally wrong. As a Catholic politician he is bound to take such actions as support the moral law. He is not bound, on the other hand, to necessarily support or oppose any piece of particular legislation. The Magisterium’s force applies to the moral law - NOT THE CIVIL LAW.

Like it or not, abortion is a civil right under our system. That does not make it a MORAL RIGHT.

Did you know it is not a moral right to chose to be any religion other than Catholic? The Church is VERY clear on that. Yet, the Church also very clearly states that the civil law should not be used to coerce people to be Catholic. The point of that is, simply because abortion is morally impermissible does not mean that the civil law MUST be used to criminalize it. As a Catholic the Representative must take steps to reduce the incidence of abortion, but what those particular steps necessarily are is NOT something on which the Church has any particular authoritative charism. The Church, as history amply shows (just google Edgardo Mortara, and the Spanish Inquisition, e.g.) has often taken or supported ill-advised civil steps and responses to moral evils.

Indeed, with today’s society, I firmly believe that attempts to criminalize abortion elicit (and have elicited) a response that leads to justifying abortion and, in fact, declaring it a civil good rather than something simply allowed. In fact, I sincerely believe most antiabortion rants are counterproductive dulling society to the horror of abortion and making it MORE acceptable. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I see going on.

Make no mistake I firmly oppose abortion. I think we do better to stop worrying about funding, consents and the like and seek a means to change the hearts and minds of people rather than rely on the civil police power. That tack simply won’t return the boat to port. Let’s convince people of the immorality of abortion and give them support for choosing life. Then maybe we can really reduce the incidence of abortion.

Whether Kennedy firmly opposes abortion is question #1. If not, that’s a problem.

If he does, then what is he doing to oppose it if he believes the current “antiabortion” solutions are not prudent is question #2.
 
johnnykins said:
The point of that is, simply because abortion is morally impermissible does not mean that the civil law MUST be used to criminalize it. As a Catholic the Representative must take steps to reduce the incidence of abortion, but what those particular steps necessarily are is NOT something on which the Church has any particular authoritative charism. The Church, as history amply shows (just google Edgardo Mortara, and the Spanish Inquisition, e.g.) has often taken or supported ill-advised civil steps and responses to moral evils.
Click to expand...
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
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.
Click to expand...
Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But “in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence”,90 which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. 91 The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, 92 it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom. 93
Click to expand...
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize.
Click to expand...
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98
Click to expand...
 
fix said:
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
Click to expand...
And what is “appropriate”? A counterproductive kneejerk reaction? How many calls for the death penalty do we see on this board for abortion? Long prison sentences? You think that willl help end abortion? All it does is entrench abortion.
That’s the issue.

The law certainly doesn’t make abortion morally legitimate. That’s the whole point of moral law v. civil law.

I suppose you would support Edgardo Mortara’s right as a Baptized Catholic to be taken by force of law from his parents? Sorry, but the “appropriate” penal sanctions can include none whatsoever when such sanctions are not appropriate. In the current situation, penal sanctions are not supported politically or socially, are counterproductive and undermine the very rights they purport to preserve by leading to a diminution in the social ethos. A myopic legalism in the name of moral law often throughout history has proven disastrous to life and souls. Sadly, I do believe we are in one of those times with abortion.

I realize many here disagree. That’s the hard part about prudence.
 
Stylites said:
When the secular press trumpets supposed divisions among Catholics, all I see them report on are those who either have faulty understandings or are in open rebellion against the Church. In either case, real Catholics see no ‘divisions.’ A division implies equality, while those who are Catholic in name only do not qualify as real Catholics.
Click to expand...
You’ve got that right! 👍
 
johnnykins said:
And what is “appropriate”? A counterproductive kneejerk reaction? How many calls for the death penalty do we see on this board for abortion? Long prison sentences? You think that willl help end abortion? All it does is entrench abortion.
That’s the issue.

The law certainly doesn’t make abortion morally legitimate. That’s the whole point of moral law v. civil law.

I suppose you would support Edgardo Mortara’s right as a Baptized Catholic to be taken by force of law from his parents? Sorry, but the “appropriate” penal sanctions can include none whatsoever when such sanctions are not appropriate. In the current situation, penal sanctions are not supported politically or socially, are counterproductive and undermine the very rights they purport to preserve by leading to a diminution in the social ethos. A myopic legalism in the name of moral law often throughout history has proven disastrous to life and souls. Sadly, I do believe we are in one of those times with abortion.

I realize many here disagree. That’s the hard part about prudence.
Click to expand...
The quotes I gave are very clear. Catholics cannot support legalized abortion.
 
johnnykins said:
Indeed, with today’s society, I firmly believe that attempts to criminalize abortion elicit (and have elicited) a response that leads to justifying abortion and, in fact, declaring it a civil good rather than something simply allowed. In fact, I sincerely believe most antiabortion rants are counterproductive dulling society to the horror of abortion and making it MORE acceptable. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I see going on.
Click to expand...
Supposedly the Martyrs would take this sort of cowardly mindset and say to the emperor: “Well gee whiz. I can’t categorically declare in public that gladiator games are wrong and ask that they stop because if I did then today’s society might make it all the MORE acceptable!”

You can substitute and other intrinsically evil thing, and see if it likewise fails to float: “I firmly believe that attempts to criminalize slavery elicit (and have elicited) a response that leads to justifying slavery . . .”

The Church has a commission to preach the truth with courage, not with cowering and angst and hand-wringing.
 
johnnykins said:
Like it or not, abortion is a civil right under our system. That does not make it a MORAL RIGHT.
Click to expand...
And this was accomplished by having 7 men overturn the existing civil law of 50 states–civil law that was passed by duly elected state legislatures.

In overturning existing abortion laws of every state in the union–some more restrictive, some less–the U.S. Supreme Court guaranteed continuing controversy, by substituting its judgment for that of the people and the legislatures of the people. And it was wrong to do so, since abortion is found nowhere in the constitution; it is obviously not a constitutional right.

There would be far less controversy over abortion if States were allowed to vote and to pass their own laws regulating it. In actuality, most people support more restrictive abortion laws than are permitted under SCOTUS rules.
 
fix said:
The quotes I gave are very clear. Catholics cannot support legalized abortion.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, a Catholic cannot support abortion. What is not clear is how it must be opposed. “An appropriate penal sanction…” is wide enough opening, (of necessity I might add), to drive a truck through. Like it or not the Church can offer no authoritative declaration on what that specific appropriate penal sanction is. It can and does offer its prudential judgment on the issue. And that’s fine. But that is all it is and can be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top