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

[johnnykins]

Yep PJPII said you can’t be pro choice and be a Catholic, so I have read…

Absolutely true (or close enough to such).

What he didn’t say was what specific legislation you must support or proffer. Nor did he address legislation with many complex issues included.

As I said, Kennedy must, as a Catholic, oppose abortion. The issue is how does one do that appropriately in this day and age. And as I also said, he does have an obligation to take action to oppose it. However, whether any specific bill must be opposed or proffered is not something within the magisterial ambit of the hierarchy or Church.

 

[fix]

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.

But, the point here is a Catholic cannot support* legalized *abortion including support for any law that allows it or voting for such a law.

If you are talking about support for a certain number of years in jail, that is not what is at issue.

 

[johnnykins]

Yes, I cannot see how it could be any more clear. So-called “pro-choice” positions are not consistent with the faith.

True, “pro-choice” is antithetical to the faith. Differences on specific applications of particular legislation is not.

 

[redrosetea]

Absolutely true (or close enough to such).

What he didn’t say was what specific legislation you must support or proffer. Nor did he address legislation with many complex issues included.

As I said, Kennedy must, as a Catholic, oppose abortion. The issue is how does one do that appropriately in this day and age. And as I also said, he does have an obligation to take action to oppose it. However, whether any specific bill must be opposed or proffered is not something within the magisterial ambit of the hierarchy or Church.

He voted for it at every turn in the road…He never submitted a bill to stop it

You can’t cooperate with evil, and aid and abet it, and then claim you aren’t a part of the process

People doing this are as guilty as the person performing the abortion

 

[tzarno1]

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.

Are you kidding? You clearly are arguing for the continued legal cover for abortion on demand.

‘And that’s fine’ …gee, thanks for allowing the Church to sit in the corner and whisper its opinion!

 

[johnnykins]

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.

Yes you can substitute. And until society changes you won’t get anywhere. That’s why I think we need to take the hard road of changing the hearts and minds in stead of relying on the heavy hand of the government. At this point the government is a losing bet for those of us who oppose abortion - IMHO.

 

[johnnykins]

But, the point here is a Catholic cannot support* legalized *abortion including support for any law that allows it or voting for such a law.

If you are talking about support for a certain number of years in jail, that is not what is at issue.

so the equivalent of a traffic ticket is OK? The argument falls apart, sorry. Also I certainly understand it’s a matter of prudence - and on that disagreement is allowed. Even vehement disagreement.

 

[johnnykins]

He voted for it at every turn in the road…He never submitted a bill to stop it

You can’t cooperate with evil, and aid and abet it, and then claim you aren’t a part of the process

People doing this are as guilty as the person performing the abortion

If that’s the case - OK. As I initially wrote, I have NOT reviewed his record. I’m simply making a point that not voting a certain way is not, per se, prohibited.

 

[johnnykins]

Are you kidding? You clearly are arguing for the continued legal cover for abortion on demand.

‘And that’s fine’ …gee, thanks for allowing the Church to sit in the corner and whisper its opinion!

Actually I think it’s the Church looking for cover by failing in it’s duty to teach and catechize and now wants to fix things through the civil government. If the Church had not been so hypocritical, and consistently “selling out” then maybe society would not be so horrendously sick. Sorry, the Church needs to clean itself up, teach the truth and then, when society is better, the civil laws will naturally change.

 

[fix]

True, “pro-choice” is antithetical to the faith. Differences on specific applications of particular legislation is not.

That depends on the issue and the proposed law. If there is a law that allows the killing of innocents that is a moral issue that the Church speaks to.

 

[redrosetea]

If that’s the case - OK. As I initially wrote, I have NOT reviewed his record. I’m simply making a point that not voting a certain way is not, per se, prohibited.

Yes it is you may not vote to destroy life …It is a sin…read the Catechism…We are not given wiggle room on any act that is murder

 

[fix]

so the equivalent of a traffic ticket is OK? The argument falls apart, sorry. Also I certainly understand it’s a matter of prudence - and on that disagreement is allowed. Even vehement disagreement.

The CCC says an appropriate penalty. That is appropriate to the grave violation.

Yes, what particular penalty is a matter of prudence. Again, that is not the issue.

 

[johnnykins]

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.

If you don’t like our system - work to change it or replace it. That’s a different issue - though I think an even more difficult stance than opposing abortion in this country. Marbury is the law. I don’t think you will get anywhere to overturn it or change Article III.

 

[fix]

If that’s the case - OK. As I initially wrote, I have NOT reviewed his record. I’m simply making a point that not voting a certain way is not, per se, prohibited.

The pope stated how a pol may vote in difficult cases related to things like abortion. There is difference between licit cooperation with evil and illicit cooperation with evil.

Support for legalized abortion is illicit. That is not a matter of prudence.

 

[k5thbeatle]

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.

Amen! It’s almost reported with glee that, “Catholics are split and fighting amongst themselves”! The truth is we are not split but not afraid to call a spade a spade.

 

[JimG]

If you don’t like our system - work to change it or replace it. That’s a different issue - though I think an even more difficult stance than opposing abortion in this country. Marbury is the law. I don’t think you will get anywhere to overturn it or change Article III.

Of course I work to change what I don’t like–primarily by working to elect presidents who will not appoint pro-abortion justices, which is about the only road open to us in view of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.

Marbury, while problematic says nothing about abortion. Nothing in judicial history up till 1973 gives any indication that abortion might be a right somehow embedded within the Constitution if only enough judicial dissection could manage to uncover it.

I believe that the founders intended 3 co-equal branches of government, not one that overarches the others. The Supreme Court now has the power to act in the same manner as a jury intent on jury nullification of existing law. That’s what the Court did in Roe and Doe–nullify existing state law.

In any case, advising the pro-life side that we must be content to work to change hearts and minds, rather than the law, would have been apt advice for the pro-abortion side in 1973. If they wanted abortion law changed, work to change it through the state legislatures and the people. But they chose to do an end run around them to nullify existing law.

 

[johnnykins]

Marbury clearly says nothing about abortion - it is the seminal case on the “judicial power” in Article III and forms the basis for constitutional interpretation of the court’s power to declare what is and isn’t constitutional. Thus it is the basis on which Roe stands.

 

[JimG]

Marbury clearly says nothing about abortion - it is the seminal case on the “judicial power” in Article III and forms the basis for constitutional interpretation of the court’s power to declare what is and isn’t constitutional. Thus it is the basis on which Roe stands.

Yes, to the extent that it made a decision to overturn 50 state laws on abortion, it had the power to do so by reason of this power of judicial review. (It is noteworthy than when the Taney court made a decision with which Lincoln disagreed, he simply ignored it.)

And as noted by one of the dissenters in Roe, the decision was an exercise in “raw judicial power,” finding a right to abortion somewhere in the penumbras of the recently discovered right of privacy.

At root, not everything is a constitutional issue. The way to change laws that we don’t like, whether pro-abortion or anti-abortion, is to have our state and national legislatures pass laws that we want. The overarching seizure of power by the SCOTUS makes that a dicey proposition.

 

[Pamm]

The thing I find most distateful about this controversy is that all of us in the public arena feel as though “we” are the judge and jury for Mr. Kennedy and his family and that the Catholic leaders involved are carrying out this dialogue in public rather with Mr. Kennedy privately. Imagine if you had sinned and a priest stood up in the Church and confronted you with that sin? It is very sad. I don’t disagree that what Mr. Kennedy is saying and doing is contrary to moral teachings of the Church. But I also believe that this needs to be an issue from the sinner and his Pastor.

 

[redrosetea]

The thing I find most distateful about this controversy is that all of us in the public arena feel as though “we” are the judge and jury for Mr. Kennedy and his family and that the Catholic leaders involved are carrying out this dialogue in public rather with Mr. Kennedy privately. Imagine if you had sinned and a priest stood up in the Church and confronted you with that sin? It is very sad. I don’t disagree that what Mr. Kennedy is saying and doing is contrary to moral teachings of the Church. But I also believe that this needs to be an issue from the sinner and his Pastor.

and who made this a public matter to begin with??? None other than Patrick Kennedy himself…by their fruits ye shall know them