New Catholic Cardinal: Catholics Can’t Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[Christopher68]

Christopher 68:

If I read you right above, you are suggesting that in debates with those who favor abortion we stand a better chance of convincing them they are wrong by referring to their side as “pro-choice”, that is, to use the label that they prefer, not because we agree that its the best label, but to save debate over the label and focus the debate on winning the main points of disagreement, which is that abortion takes a human life, and life is worthy of protection?

Do you not think, however, that in accepting the label “pro-choice” we also accept some of the underlying premises of the opposing argument? For example, there is a tendency to focus on “hard cases” (rape, incest), as well as a false-liberty (and I would add, false-feminist) argument, which are facilitated by describing the position as pro-choice.

JHow,

I appreciate your rational and cogent post. In answer to your question, I will readily admit that I don’t have very much real world experience debating this topic in person. For me, it’s just extremely rare for the topic of abortion to come up in any interpersonal conversations. ( Perhaps others discuss this topic in person regularly, and can offer their observations).

I made my initial post on this thread regarding terminology for the following reason - in my own case, if someone is trying to convince me of something (regardless of the topic), they are more likley to be successful if they can respectfully and logically persuade or convince me of the validity of their position. By contrast, if someone speaks to me in a denigrating or belittling manner, I will usually stop listening to the “messenger” regardless of the “message” that they are trying to convey. So with that in mind, my suspicion is that the word “pro-abortion” - or the use of a Hitler analogy - would cause the listener to “turn off” the messenger and disregard the message. Not everyone responds the same way, of course. I was just offering my own observations.

 

[Christopher68]

The Church teaches that to die with a mortal sin on your soul condemns you to Hell. The Church also teaches that abortion is murder, thus a violation of the Fifth Commandment. To commit murder or to condone it is a mortal sin. The Pope and Cardinal Burke are instructing the faithful to not vote for politicans who support abortion. It’s that simple. You can throw up whatever flak or distractions you want but it’s not me you are opposing, its God’s Law. Think beyond petty politics and towards the greater good along with your own salvation.

Ockham,

On this thread I have not once mentioned politics, nor have I argued against the church’s position. In fact, not one thing that you mentioned above have I commented on in this thread.

 

[pnewton]

Why use the term ‘pro-abortion’?

Pro-choice is deceptive. Only one party gets to choose - the mother. The child is not given a choice.

 

[Ockham]

Ockham,

On this thread I have not once mentioned politics, nor have I argued against the church’s position. In fact, not one thing that you mentioned above have I commented on in this thread.

Read your words in Post 69. Ask a priest for comprehension if necessary.

 

[pnewton]

To your analogies from above, I don’t know anyone on either side of the abortion debate who would make such comments, so I don’t know what type of response you are looking for.

You say that, but I have never heard of one good reason why the analogy is false. The one I prefer is infanticide. Why is it legal to kill a baby one day before birth, but not one day after, or not nine months later? If you object to partial birth abortions being legal then what is the difference in killing the baby three months before birth as opposed to three months later?

If abortion is not infanticide, then what is the difference? If there is no difference, why is one legal and the other not?

Christopher, do you have any answers?

 

[JHow]

I have known a few people who have changed their views of abortion (from pro- to anti-) and that change was not the result of a single argument or debate, or even any argument at all. It came rather, from experience and greater knowledge about childbirth and children. For example, in one instance a friend took a biology class at Jr. college, which included a trip to the local hospital where they were shown human fetuses in jars of formaldehyde to learn about human development. That was all it took. Another friend I know (and I think this may be very typical) held a “tolerant” view of abortion until she got married and had her own first child. Experiencing her own pregnancy (complete with preeclampsia and ultimately cesarean birth) completely changed her views on the topic. I think the filmmakers of that movie “Juno” caught some of this idea when the main character is stopped from aborting by thinking about the baby’s fingernails.

 

[Christopher68]

You say that, but I have never heard of one good reason why the analogy is false. The one I prefer is infanticide. Why is it legal to kill a baby one day before birth, but not one day after, or not nine months later? If you object to partial birth abortions being legal then what is the difference in killing the baby three months before birth as opposed to three months later?

If abortion is not infanticide, then what is the difference? If there is no difference, why is one legal and the other not?

Christopher, do you have any answers?

I surely do not have the answers. I’m just one guy on a message forum.

I know I’ve said this several times on this thread, but I think it bears repeating - I am not in this thread to dispute the church’s position on this topic. My comments have only been regarding terminology. I have no doubt that you and the others who have commented believe that the words you prefer to use accurately represent those who view the topic differently. I suppose my comments are a variation on the axiom that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Ockham apparently read more into my post than was intended, but that was the extent of the point I was trying to make.

 

[pnewton]

I have no doubt that you and the others who have commented believe that the words you prefer to use accurately represent those who view the topic differently. I suppose my comments are a variation on the axiom that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

I agree with you on this. I only use pro-abortion as a point of accuracy. Choice is a good thing. Everyone wants more choices. Yet in this debate it is not any choice that is up for discussion. It is specifically abortion. I have the same problem with the term pro-life. It is too vague. I unabashedly label myself anti-abortion as opposed to pro-life. Yes, it is a negative term but it is accurate.

 

[archangel04]

And I suppose he’s going to follow every Catholic into their polling booth.

God will do this as many already state, I hope you bealive that God knows all right?

Remember too it is God who knows the heart. And in doing so I imagine God has the capacity to read one’s heart and motives for their actions and reasons for their voting habits in American elections. God bless!

Really? So are part of that “IN” crowd that is willing to set aside the right to life in order to benefit your own needs? In this case may I add selfish needs? You are right only God knows the heart, but it sounds to me like you are trying to use an excuse to vote for pro-abortion poloticians, yes pro-abortion, there is no such thing as pro-choice.

 

[RobbyS]

Look up the Church’s position on moral relativism.

Kennedy was given a Catholic funeral possibly because some clergy don’t enforce Church teaching. Kennedy may have made a full confession and cleared his soul of support for abortion. Whatever the case, abortion is murder and no Catholic should vote for a poltican who supports it.

It was a political affair. Kennedy should have had a private funeral, like his sister Eunice’s. O’ Malley ought to have stayed away, but he is a long way from being a John the Baptist.

 

[RobbyS]

Equally tragic is to think of the two as separate entities, competing against one another. A child is dependent on his mother most certainly so while he is in the womb. One reason why Texas was unable to produce an example of a "fetus"being the plaintiff in a damage suit was that the mother was regarded as the responsible one. Under international law, citizens have no rights.Only states, because the states are bound to protect citizens. And a state that kills those of its citizens who are innocent of crime is regarded as doing wrong.

 

[CMatt25]

God will do this as many already state, I hope you bealive that God knows all right?

Really? So are part of that “IN” crowd that is willing to set aside the right to life in order to benefit your own needs? In this case may I add selfish needs? You are right only God knows the heart, but it sounds to me like you are trying to use an excuse to vote for pro-abortion poloticians, yes pro-abortion, there is no such thing as pro-choice.

I don’t need an abortion.

Both pro abortion and pro-life are misnomers. The Church keeps ever so slightly the door open for rare instances where the death penalty is justified. And I know many opposed to abortion choice who are perfectly fine with supporting the death penalty. There’s definitely no pro life in that. To argue someone who we know was born a human person can be killed by the state due to not being innocent and to play God by taking this person’s life does not mean 2 wrongs equal a right. The cost of life in prison might be the price we must pay not to kill someone knowingly born a human being. Juries have been wrong too. And Jesus said we had heard eye for eye and then He added a but…

There are many other aspects to being pro life. The lives of the poor, the sick, war and peace issues, and so on all have a pro life aspect to them.

And as Christopher68 pointed out by no means are all labeled pro choice personally pro abortion. So in regard to the abortion issue, I prefer using pro-choice or anti-choice.

One can I believe be described rather quite appropriately as pro life, anti abortion but pro choice. I know there are those who try to inject unrelated analogies. But there are those who simply do not believe they have the right to force their faith beliefs onto others as it applies to a law of the land in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. Where there is gray not all black and white. Rape, incest, protecting the mother’s health and life. Ensoulment for those who believe a human person bears a soul. The balancing of rights of women with the unborn. And so forth. And a nation has tried to come to grips with all of this and more, to arrive at a law of the land.

God bless and peace.

 

[pnewton]

And as Christopher68 pointed out by no means are all labeled pro choice personally pro abortion. So in regard to the abortion issue, I prefer using pro-choice or anti-choice.

That makes about as much sense and is about as balanced as those who go with pro-life and pro-death.

While we should be able to use tact, the one thing we must not do in the fight against abortion is let those who support legalized abortion to control the language. The second thing is to water down the abortion issue with the death penalty. The position of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on the this. Abortion is always gravely sinful. It is murder and must be treated as such. It must be opposed. The death penalty is a right that the state maintains, but should be exercised sparingly, if at all.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I don’t need an abortion.

Both pro abortion and pro-life are misnomers. The Church keeps ever so slightly the door open for rare instances where the death penalty is justified. ** And I know many opposed to abortion choice who are perfectly fine with supporting the death penalty. There’s definitely no pro life in that. To argue someone who we know was born a human person can be killed by the state due to not being innocent and to play God by taking this person’s life does not mean 2 wrongs equal a right.** The cost of life in prison might be the price we must pay not to kill someone knowingly born a human being. Juries have been wrong too. And Jesus said we had heard eye for eye and then He added a but…

There are many other aspects to being pro life. The lives of the poor, the sick, war and peace issues, and so on all have a pro life aspect to them.

And as Christopher68 pointed out by no means are all labeled pro choice personally pro abortion. So in regard to the abortion issue,** I prefer using pro-choice or anti-choice. **

One can I believe be described rather quite appropriately as pro life, anti abortion but pro choice. I know there are those who try to inject unrelated analogies. **But there are those who simply do not believe they have the right to force their faith beliefs onto others as it applies to a law of the land in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. **Where there is gray not all black and white. Rape, incest, protecting the mother’s health and life. Ensoulment for those who believe a human person bears a soul. The balancing of rights of women with the unborn. And so forth. And a nation has tried to come to grips with all of this and more, to arrive at a law of the land.

God bless and peace.

I would like to discuss the bolded parts of your post. The terms Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, Anti-abortion, Anti-Choice are all terms that are used interchangeably from those on both sides of the issue. I have no problem calling a person Pro-Abortion even if they describe themselves Pro-Choice because what is the choice that they advocate that each woman should have? The right to an abortion. I could say that Pro-Lifers are Pro-Choice because they believe that a woman should have the option to either keep the baby or give it up for adoption. That’s in favor of being pro-choice. However, it wouldn’t be a good idea for those who are against abortion as an option to call themselves pro choice because of the confusion that would ensue.

Regarding capital punishment, I am probably not the biggest fan of it because like what you said, errors can be made during a trial, and once a person is executed, its final. However, I don’t like it when other people (not you) misrepresent Catholic teachings on it. In Catholic teaching, capital punishment can (not always but some) be morally licit (permitted).

Finally I do have to take you to task about abortion being a religious issue. I am Catholic, but even if I was atheist, I would still be against abortion. Is murder of a person a religious belief? I am sure atheists are against murder, stealing etc.

 

[rlg94086]

That makes about as much sense and is about as balanced as those who go with pro-life and pro-death.
.

Yep. Can you imagine if the issue at hand was genocide (equally horific as abortion), and someone said “…by no means are all labeled pro choice personally pro genocide. So in regard to the genocide issue, I prefer using pro-choice or anti-choice?”

How about slavery? That was the basically the approach some people took in our country prior to the Emancipation Proclamation - personally opposed to slavery, but we should let the states choose. Was that moral? I understand for some it was a constitutional compromise, but we don’t even allow the states to choose on the abortion issue!

 

[estesbob]

That makes about as much sense and is about as balanced as those who go with pro-life and pro-death.

While we should be able to use tact, the one thing we must not do in the fight against abortion is let those who support legalized abortion to control the language. The second thing is to water down the abortion issue with the death penalty. The position of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on the this. Abortion is always gravely sinful. It is murder and must be treated as such. It must be opposed. The death penalty is a right that the state maintains, but should be exercised sparingly, if at all.

For those who are pro-abortion it’s all a semantics game. Pro-choice, fetus, product of conception, reproductive rights, control of one’s body, etc. etc. etc… All euphemisms used to keep from having to verbalize the terrible ,terrible evil they support.

 

[jackangelo1]

I’ve been trying for over forty years to get Popes, bishops to OBEY Canon Laws #912 # 915 # 1329 #1398 AND Follow Church Doctrine by Excommunicating all bishops,priests,Polititins who AID, ABET and Counsel abortion and\or homosexuality? They MUST destroy the "IN " Crowd before the “in” crowd destroys Catholic Identity at Notre Dame and 96 other Catholic Universities? We also have an uphill battle, no one listens to the faithfull catholic ,but listen to the more vocal "in " crowd.

Since I’ve recieved no feedback on my thoughts ,maybe I need to put it more Clearly.Archbishop Burke stated it Clearly, Catholics must be Pro-Life, and also Pro-Family. I wrote the above letter to show what must be done to revive our Catholic Identity. We must Remove Evil ( pro-abortion catholics,pro-homosexuality advocates) From Roman Catholicism? I’m a faithful Catholic,and I’m going to HEAVEN!

 

[ProVobis]

For those who are pro-abortion it’s all a semantics game. Pro-choice, fetus, product of conception, reproductive rights, control of one’s body, etc. etc. etc… All euphemisms used to keep from having to verbalize the terrible ,terrible evil they support.

I’ll have to agree with you here. Most politicians that I know will run on any language that will win them the vote. It’s the people who ultimately decide whether the elected official is “pro-life,” “pro-choice,” “anti-woman,” or what not. There’s plenty of evidence many officials change their position according to the whims of their constituents.

I suggest cutting the pay of elected officials so they serve their country and state on principles rather than on promised pensions and health coverage.

 

[ProVobis]

… Catholics must be Pro-Life, and also Pro-Family. I wrote the above letter to show what must be done to revive our Catholic Identity.

I would throw Pro-Adoption in there as well. There shouldn’t be an outlay of tens of thousands of dollars to pay lawyers and judges for the right to adopt.

 

[elts1956]

mary bobo;7213331:

COULD YOU IMAGINE, with glee , the Pope and his bishops Squirming at the thought that their flocks are asking Questions like ; Where were the Pope and his bishops when homosexuality Ruled at the Seminaries in the 50s? Where were the Pope and his bishops in 1973 when America Legalized murdering babies??AND Where have they been in Confronting and Condemning evil and evildoers throughout our history???A Burning Question?? if indeed the Pope is Canon Law , Why are pro-abortion Polititions,pro-abortion Catholics still members of Catholicism??

“You can’t be Catholic and Pro Choice. Get it straight once and for all”,FatherJohnCorapi. Good questions all,but there area few faithful leaders in existence.