Kreeft: Pro-Abort Catholics More Damaging than Sex-Abuse Scandal

[rlg94086]

That is because the catholics voting pro-choice are* misinformed* Catholics. Its just as absurd as the pro-pedo stance to imagine a fully informed Catholic voting pro-choice.

USCCB Forming Conscious for Faithful Citizenship
faithfulcitizenship.org/church/statements

Catholics are taught by the Clergy as to how to exercise their right to vote in a moral manner consistent with Church Teachings. If all these misinformed Catholics are voting pro-choice, its sad but not tragic as the clergy are charged with clearing up misinformation on Life Issues.

My take: The Catholics who vote pro-choice are Cafeteria Catholics who do not submit to teachings of the church, thus a mere politician can influence them more than the teachings of the RCC.

I think that’s a fair take. And, I think I see your argument now. Basically, what you are saying is that the abuse crisis hurt the Church more because it affected the perceived moral authority of the priesthood…whose job it is to inform consciences. I can’t argue with that.

I pray for the continued recovery of the Church from the scandals and for the victims. I also pray for the “cafeteria” Catholics (I was one), that they may see and accept the whole Truth of His Church.

 

[Petergee]

The Question is clear which hurt the Church more: clergy abuse or pro-abortion politicians who swindle uninformed Catholics.

They are both ugly but one undeniable difference exists: The people are instructed by the Clergy as to how to exercise their conscious when voting. Some of these same clergy who we entrust with shaping the concise of adult voters, were sexually abusing defenseless kids.

And the great majority of those clergy who were abusing defenceless kids (usually teenage males) also deliberaqtely avoided ever condemning voting for abortion, or even suggested that it is morally OK.

 

[rlg94086]

And the great majority of those clergy who were abusing defenceless kids (usually teenage males) also deliberaqtely avoided ever condemning voting for abortion, or even suggested that it is morally OK.

Good point. I would also add that I have yet to meet a pro-choice Catholic who was pro-life before the abuse scandal became public. They have used the scandal to excuse their heresy, but the scandal didn’t lead to their heresy.

 

[jilly4ski]

That is because the catholics voting pro-choice are* misinformed* Catholics. Its just as absurd as the pro-pedo stance to imagine a fully informed Catholic voting pro-choice.

USCCB Forming Conscious for Faithful Citizenship
faithfulcitizenship.org/church/statements

Catholics are taught by the Clergy as to how to exercise their right to vote in a moral manner consistent with Church Teachings. If all these misinformed Catholics are voting pro-choice, its sad but not tragic as the clergy are charged with clearing up misinformation on Life Issues.

My take: The Catholics who vote pro-choice are Cafeteria Catholics who do not submit to teachings of the church, thus a mere politician can influence them more than the teachings of the RCC.

I think what Kreeft was actually talking about was the priests and theologians who said that being or voting “pro-choice” was fine was worse than those who committed the child abuse. This is not just being uninformed. This was people in power saying that people could support this evil with a clear conscience. Thus people have sought political power using this argument to gain votes. Their arguments live on, and even Catholics who claim they are well informed, and are on this site, purposefully vote for pro-abortion/pro choice politicians because they claim those politicians support their other political ideas, or are more completely “pro-life” because they don’t support the death penalty, or etc.

This was sin of power, these priests and theologians gave politicians a moral cover to be pro abortion, for votes, which spread the lie, that abortion was ok. Nobody is arguing that abusing children is ok, or that the actions taken were ok. It is a sin of power versus a sin of weakness.

From the article:

“These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God,” Kreeft said. “Sorry, that’s just the way it is. In fact, I’d say these were even worse than the child molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because they did it deliberately, it wasn’t a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that’s straight from the devil.”

 

[irishpatrick]

LOL huh? Pro-pedaphillia candidate? What in world makes you think that Anyone would vote for a pro-pedo candidate?

The Question is clear which hurt the Church more: clergy abuse or pro-abortion politicians who swindle uninformed Catholics.

They are both ugly but one undeniable difference exists: The people are instructed by the Clergy as to how to exercise their conscious when voting. Some of these same clergy who we entrust with shaping the concise of adult voters, were sexually abusing defenseless kids.

No person should ever attempt to justify the abuse scandal. However, 50,000,000 babies are dead since 1973, of which we can reasonably state that 12,000,000 of those dead would have been baptized Catholics–THAT is an unspeakable harm. The true difference is that in one case (the abuse of children and minors) we can actually see the person abused–while in the second case (abortion), we never see the victim.

 

[GraceSofia]

I think what Kreeft was actually talking about was the priests and theologians who said that being or voting “pro-choice” was fine was worse than those who committed the child abuse. This is not just being uninformed. This was people in power saying that people could support this evil with a clear conscience. Thus people have sought political power using this argument to gain votes. Their arguments live on, and even Catholics who claim they are well informed, and are on this site, purposefully vote for pro-abortion/pro choice politicians because they claim those politicians support their other political ideas, or are more completely “pro-life” because they don’t support the death penalty, or etc.

This was sin of power, these priests and theologians gave politicians a moral cover to be pro abortion, for votes, which spread the lie, that abortion was ok. Nobody is arguing that abusing children is ok, or that the actions taken were ok. It is a sin of power versus a sin of weakness.

Exactly.

Catholic theologians gave Catholic politicians and voters a* formation* whereby they could support what Catholics know is intrinsic evil.

They started us down the road of privatisation of religious belief in the individual conscience, relativism, and untold damage.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

I feel that both issues are so very disturbing, and worthy of much prayer. When I think of any child suffering, whether due to the fact that he was never allowed to draw the first breath of life, or whether through abuse of any kind, when I think on that, I feel nothing but compassion for those who are hurt through any direct or indirect cause.

 

[Tenofovir]

I agree with Peter Kreeft.

Sadly he now charges for his speeches on his website but those talks are brilliant. They’re especially great for people who despair over faith issues.

 

[GraceSofia]

The talk which is the subject of this thread can be heard for free here:

Can a Catholic be a Liberal?

You Tube has some of his talks, including his series on The Existence of God.

On his web site, he explains why there is a $2 fee for some talks, but many are still free.
peterkreeft.com/audio_updates.htm
“It turns out that some vendors, such as MySpace Music offer the option to preview the entire recording. So the audio is actually still fully available by simply registering for a free account with the vendor. Last, if for some reason these options don’t work, you can contact us to request free copies.”

 

[damian_clarke]

What would happen to an American politician who publically came out against abortion. Are there any who do so?

 

[GraceSofia]

What would happen to an American politician who publically came out against abortion. Are there any who do so?

Yes, there are some.
Rick Perry joins other candidates in pledging against abortion

Rick Perry became the seventh candidate to sign the Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge, promising to appoint cabinet members and judges that are against abortion and withhold federal money from medical centers that perform abortions. Pledge signees also promise to push for legislation ending abortions.

Scroll down to see the positions of the candidates:
Presidential candidates on abortion

 

[estesbob]

What would happen to an American politician who publically came out against abortion. Are there any who do so?

Just about every American politician who belongs to the Republican Party has come out against abortion , although some regrettably support it in cases of rape and incest. The Democrat Party has unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand, enshrined in its party platform and it is almost impossible to find a Democrat on a national level who does not enthusiastically support abortion.

 

[timmo]

The Catholic Church condones neither abortion nor paedophilia. They are both grave matters.

I am non-plussed that catholics (or anybody for that matter), should be unsure as to which of these is the more serious and the more prevalent.

Or am i missing something?

 

[manygift1spirit]

The Catholic Church condones neither abortion nor paedophilia. They are both grave matters.

I am non-plussed that catholics (or anybody for that matter), should be unsure as to which of these is the more serious and the more prevalent.

Or am i missing something?

Unfortunately some do not think one or the other, or both, are serious. Indeed some condone either, or both (google “it’s only wrong for a certain type of Roman”)

And of course abortion is far more prevalent, I am not sure if there is any widespread disagreement about this.

But Kreeft’s point wasn’t about prevalence, nor seriousness. But of damage and scandal. It is hard to rigorously quantify his claim, but I for one suspect he is right.

I have heard the teaser put forward that while today the Church is condemned for not adequately condemning the paedophilia and ephebophilia of its own clergy, someday it will be condemned for not condoning the same practices in general.

 

[timmo]

Originally Posted by manygift1spirit
Unfortunately some do not think one or the other, or both, are serious. Indeed some condone either, or both (google “it’s only wrong for a certain type of Roman”)

And of course abortion is far more prevalent, I am not sure if there is any widespread disagreement about this.

But Kreeft’s point wasn’t about prevalence, nor seriousness. But of damage and scandal. It is hard to rigorously quantify his claim, but I for one suspect he is right.

I have heard the teaser put forward that while today the Church is condemned for not adequately condemning the paedophilia and ephebophilia of its own clergy, someday it will be condemned for not condoning the same practices in general.

I googled your reference but got only results to this thread!

I think it’s reasonable to expect that the thing which is most serious and also the most prevalent, is most likely to cause most damage and scandal?

It seems to me that powerful dissident and disobedient clergy have been working hard to destroy The Church from within.
The reaction of these influential people to Humanae Vitae indicates, to me at least, that many seminaries and Catholic education in general was already going quickly downhill.

It’s hard not to have sympathy for the last two generations who have been subjected to a diet of distorted morals, freedom and Truth.
Nevertheless, it’s hard to believe that any Catholic cannot see the damage that their ambivalence regarding the absolute evil of abortion does to The Church.

With regard to your “teaser”, one wonders will The Catholic Church get all her money back when that time comes – just sayin.

tim

 

[estesbob]

The Catholic Church condones neither abortion nor paedophilia. They are both grave matters.

I am non-plussed that catholics (or anybody for that matter), should be unsure as to which of these is the more serious and the more prevalent.

Or am i missing something?

52% of Catholic voters voted for a man who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded on demand some still defend the vote today Reeft is right -This defiance of Church teaching harms the Cburch more than the homosexual Priest scandal