Pro Choice Catholics

[Nightfly]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion? For Catholics, this is a central issue but some people can rationalize. What has happened?

 

[Philothea53]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion? For Catholics, this is a central issue but some people can rationalize. What has happened?

You ***CAN NOT ***be both Catholic and pro-choice (pro-abortion). The term pro-choice Catholic is an oxymoron to beat all oxymorons.

 

[stbruno]

You ***CAN NOT ***be both Catholic and pro-choice (pro-abortion). The term pro-choice Catholic is an oxymoron to beat all oxymorons.

AGREE!

 

[SoCalRC]

I, personally, am leary to declare who can and cannot be Catholic. I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis wrote in MERE CHRISTIANITY, I cannot look into someone’s heart and see their true intentions and I am specifically instructed by my savior not to make moral comparisons between myself and others. At most, I might speculate that, based on observed behavior, someone does not seem to be a good Catholic.

Even that is something I am hesitant to say. Take the question at hand. How can I truly judge if someone’s vote is ultimately ‘pro life’ or not? Consider a real scenario (though I will drop party and politician names).

For a number of years it has been well known that there are serious problems with human rights abuses, human trafficing, and forced participation in sex trades as well as sweat shops, in Saipan. Saipan is part of an American Protectorate. As a consequence, items made there can be marked “Made in America”.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops specifically noted the problems in Saipan in multiple reports on human rights and slavery. One of the most offensive things (to me at least) that investigators discovered was that there are camps of guest workers from China. If one of these workers, essentially female slaves, becomes pregnant, forced abortions occur. How many? No one is sure, but human rights worker Eric Gregoire told ABC News, “With 11,000 Chinese workers here, I have never seen a Chinese garment factory worker have a baby.” A statement that still gives me chills.

I am sure that there are more horrible things than having your baby forcibly killed inside you so that you can be more productive in your indentured servitude, but I am hard pressed to come up with one at the moment. Anyway, the factory and sex trade owners benefiting from this gave huge sums of money to a Washington lobbiest (who is now convicted and disgraced on several charges). The lobbiest, in turn, gave large sums of money to certain politicians and their political party.

In addition, the most powerful politicians were given expensive perks, like family vacations to exotic resorts. Now, several politicians (from both parties I should add), became aware of this situation and tried to take action. They basically wanted to extend some American labor laws to the protectorate.

Several of the politicians receiving money from the lobbiest (one in particular) blocked the legislation from advancing. They also spread false and damaging statements about other people to help discredit reports of the abuses.

Now, here is the tricky part. Are the politicians who blocked the changes pro-abortion or pro-life? In other words, is the proper litmus test what they say they about Roe v. Wade, or the actual consequences of their actions in office?

Again, I do not mean this to be a political endorsement for any side or person. I am just making the point that few perfect candidates exist and a Catholic who, for example, felt a great calling with regards to poverty or socio economic exploitation might decide to vote for a different ‘lesser of two evils’ than a fellow Catholic who felt called to God’s work in a different area.

Best Wishes

 

[Philothea53]

I, personally, am leary to declare who can and cannot be Catholic. I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis wrote in MERE CHRISTIANITY, I cannot look into someone’s heart and see their true intentions and I am specifically instructed by my savior not to make moral comparisons between myself and others. At most, I might speculate that, based on observed behavior, someone does not seem to be a good Catholic.

Even that is something I am hesitant to say. Take the question at hand. How can I truly judge if someone’s vote is ultimately ‘pro life’ or not? Consider a real scenario (though I will drop party and politician names).

For a number of years it has been well known that there are serious problems with human rights abuses, human trafficing, and forced participation in sex trades as well as sweat shops, in Saipan. Saipan is part of an American Protectorate. As a consequence, items made there can be marked “Made in America”.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops specifically noted the problems in Saipan in multiple reports on human rights and slavery. One of the most offensive things (to me at least) that investigators discovered was that there are camps of guest workers from China. If one of these workers, essentially female slaves, becomes pregnant, forced abortions occur. How many? No one is sure, but human rights worker Eric Gregoire told ABC News, “With 11,000 Chinese workers here, I have never seen a Chinese garment factory worker have a baby.” A statement that still gives me chills.

I am sure that there are more horrible things than having your baby forcibly killed inside you so that you can be more productive in your indentured servitude, but I am hard pressed to come up with one at the moment. Anyway, the factory and sex trade owners benefiting from this gave huge sums of money to a Washington lobbiest (who is now convicted and disgraced on several charges). The lobbiest, in turn, gave large sums of money to certain politicians and their political party.

In addition, the most powerful politicians were given expensive perks, like family vacations to exotic resorts. Now, several politicians (from both parties I should add), became aware of this situation and tried to take action. They basically wanted to extend some American labor laws to the protectorate.

Several of the politicians receiving money from the lobbiest (one in particular) blocked the legislation from advancing. They also spread false and damaging statements about other people to help discredit reports of the abuses.

Now, here is the tricky part. Are the politicians who blocked the changes pro-abortion or pro-life? In other words, is the proper litmus test what they say they about Roe v. Wade, or the actual consequences of their actions in office?

Again, I do not mean this to be a political endorsement for any side or person. I am just making the point that few perfect candidates exist and a Catholic who, for example, felt a great calling with regards to poverty or socio economic exploitation might decide to vote for a different ‘lesser of two evils’ than a fellow Catholic who felt called to God’s work in a different area.

Best Wishes

Abortion trumps all other issues, always. There is no “lesser of two evils” argument when one of the evils is abortion. A candidate for any office can be the biggest philanthropist the country has ever seen This person might sit on the board of ‘Habitat’ and spend weekends slinging a hammer, evenings in front of the TV tying mission rosaries and Saturdays working the local soup kitchen. But, the moment he or she supports/promotes/advocates or in any way participates, directly or indirectly, in the taking of a human life through deliberate abortion, all bets are off.

Again, there is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic. One can not legitimately call themselves a Catholic if they consider themselves to be (even slightly) pro-choice - even those who say they are ‘personally opposed.’

 

[CatholicChick]

You ***CAN NOT ***be both Catholic and pro-choice (pro-abortion). The term pro-choice Catholic is an oxymoron to beat all oxymorons.

I agree as well. Those who say they are “liberal Catholics” or pro choice Catholics are a disgrace to our Church!
SUPPORT PRO LIFE POLITICS!
SUPPORT OUR ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS PRO LIFE!

 

[PoliSciProf]

I agree that there very few perfect candidates for public office and perhaps even fewer perfect Catholic candidates (consider the former mayor of New York campaigning for the Republican nomination). I find that a pro-life stance is a most important factor in determining my vote, but it cannot be the sine qua non of my decision. (An aside, I am not talking about hammer banging Habitat for Humanity supporters).Prudence determines that sometimes I must pick the lesser of two evils when there is no other alternative. I would rather have an imperfect Catholic (or even a non-Catholic) rather tham a libertine any time.

With regard to non-polliticians, I know several pro-choice Catholics. In my experience, they have simply bought into the secular orthodoxy and have not reflected on the nature of their faith and the reality of abortion. They deserve our prayers and and the proper pro-life witnessing.

 

[Petergee]

SoCalRC, I don’t see your problem. Yes of course we need to judge a politicians actions (how he voted on measures that would reduce or ban abortions) rather than just his words. But if I follow what you’re saying, then a politician who supported laws to prevent forced abortions on Saipan, but supported keeping abortion legal as per Roe v Wade, would reduce the number of abortions. A politician who supported overturning Roe v Wade would reduce the number much more, as the US States and territories would then be free to ban or impose restrictions on abortion, and in seems apparent to me that most if not all of them would do just that. Seems no contest to me. Of course if there is a politician who supported both reforms, s/he would be even better to vote for.

 

[RobHom]

If you are a Catholic, and I do mean a “Catholic”, I would advise you to be very cautious about picking a candidate based on their stance regarding “choices” or any other moral issue. Just because a candidate says he/she is “pro-choice” or “anti-abortion”…is primarily “baby kissing” and “election rhetoric”. You could be setting yourself up to be “sucker punched”. This has already happened in the past election for POTUS.

Don’t get me wrong. I am “anti-abortion”, but when it comes right down to it…politicians lie through their teeth. What counts is their “voting records”…and frankly given the dismal choices that are offered up to the electorate…we are almost forced to pick the lesser of two evils. Its been this way for ages now.

If you make the mistake of voting based solely on the candidates so called stance on the abortion issue…you may have fallen for a panderer, who is much like a dishonest used car salesman, or a politician in general. And you may not like what you get in the long run.

There are many politicians that will pander to Catholics based on our particular beliefs on issues such as abortion, and will try to get you to vote for them…all the while in another arena they will express disdain and animosity towards Catholics, to include declaring Catholicism to be a cult or false religion.

Should you doubt this… I would be more than happy to provide you with links to this people.

I personally…would rather support the lesser of two evils, than make the mistake of voting for a “shill”. You should vote your conscience, as do I. But be prepared to pay the bill when it comes due.

 

[Philothea53]

I agree that there very few perfect candidates for public office and perhaps even fewer perfect Catholic candidates (consider the former mayor of New York campaigning for the Republican nomination). I find that a pro-life stance is a most important factor in determining my vote, but it cannot be the sine qua non of my decision. (An aside, I am not talking about hammer banging Habitat for Humanity supporters).Prudence determines that sometimes I must pick the lesser of two evils when there is no other alternative. I would rather have an imperfect Catholic (or even a non-Catholic) rather tham a libertine any time.

With regard to non-polliticians, I know several pro-choice Catholics. In my experience, they have simply bought into the secular orthodoxy and have not reflected on the nature of their faith and the reality of abortion. They deserve our prayers and and the proper pro-life witnessing.

Absolutely! They deserve, and our faith demandsthat we pray for them and witness to them. But to allow them to call themselves Catholics but to do it also, is to encourage them in the persistance of sin. If they have “bought into the secular orthodoxy and have not reflected on the nature of their faith and the reality of abortion” then that is even more reason to show pictures such as have been discussed. But I stray from my original point.

No getting around it: Promoting/supporting/advocating abortion is to excommunicate oneself from the Catholic Church. One who has been excommunicated cannot call themselves a Catholic until they have repented, confessed, received absolution and made retribution. Pro-choice Catholic is an oxymoron and by definition cannot exist.

(An oxymoron is defined as a combination of contradictory or incongruous words. Examples: wise fool, ignorantly learned, laughing sadness, pious hate, cruel kindness.)

 

[RobHom]

I consistently seem to hear of people claiming to say that politicians “support the overturning of Roe vs Wade”… that is about the most laughable statement I have ever heard. Sorry folks, but it is.

Ask yourself this: Why has it not yet been overturned? Presently there is a clear majority on the Supreme Court of “CATHOLICS”!! I believe the number is FIVE of the NINE Justices are CATHOLICS. This being the case…why has it not been overturned?

Simply put: The Supreme Court cannot overturn and earlier decision made by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions are final. Thats why they call it the Supreme Court. If the present Supreme Court was to overturn any decision previously made by a previously sitting Supreme Court, I believe it would trigger a very serious constitutional crisis, and could lead to legal mayhem in this country.

If the present Supreme Court was to overturn Roe vs Wade, or any other decision made prior…it would signal to America that the Supreme Court is corrupt, for sale, and naught but a political tool to do the bidding of a select group. It would additionally lower and diminish the Supreme Court to the level of a redneck backwater good ole boy traffic court in Podunk where the sheriff, the deputies, and the judge come from the same branchless family tree.

The battle against abortion needs to be carried on educationally, and with prayer, and by setting examples…not with legislation. Time and time and time and again…it has been “proven beyond a shadow of a doubt” that morality cannot be legislated.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

Ask yourself this: Why has it not yet been overturned? Presently there is a clear majority on the Supreme Court of “CATHOLICS”!! I believe the number is FIVE of the NINE Justices are CATHOLICS. This being the case…why has it not been overturned?

Simply put: The Supreme Court cannot overturn and earlier decision made by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions are final.

Actually, that’s not quite true. Although the legal doctrine of stare decisis is a main aspect of common law, it is not mandatory. The Supreme Court has overturned decision made by previous Supreme Courts that it deems erroneously decided.

Notwithstanding the error, you bring up an interesting point. Do Catholic judges have to follow Catholic doctrine in deciding constitutional law, or do they have to follow the rules for legal construction? If by following legal construction and stare decisis a Catholic judge must rule for a particular case permitting abortion, should the judge recuse himself for religious objection? It’s similar to the question must a Catholic landlord rent to co-habitating couples, when not doing so is against the law? My sense is they should, just as Catholic pharmacists should decline to dispense contraceptives based on religious objection.

 

[thechrismyster]

i vote on one issue and one issue only.

the candidate who is pro-life from conception to natural death gets my vote. if there are no pro-life candidates, i write myself in.

 

[Petergee]

I consistently seem to hear of people claiming to say that politicians “support the overturning of Roe vs Wade”… that is about the most laughable statement I have ever heard. Sorry folks, but it is.

Ask yourself this: Why has it not yet been overturned? Presently there is a clear majority on the Supreme Court of “CATHOLICS”!! I believe the number is FIVE of the NINE Justices are CATHOLICS. This being the case…why has it not been overturned?

IIRC at least 2 or 3 of them are purely nominal “Catholics”.

Simply put: The Supreme Court cannot overturn and earlier decision made by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions are final. Thats why they call it the Supreme Court. If the present Supreme Court was to overturn any decision previously made by a previously sitting Supreme Court, I believe it would trigger a very serious constitutional crisis, and could lead to legal mayhem in this country.

If the present Supreme Court was to overturn Roe vs Wade, or any other decision made prior…it would signal to America that the Supreme Court is corrupt, for sale, and naught but a political tool to do the bidding of a select group. It would additionally lower and diminish the Supreme Court to the level of a redneck backwater good ole boy traffic court in Podunk where the sheriff, the deputies, and the judge come from the same branchless family tree.

I’m not even an American and I know that’s nonsense. Your Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that Negroes do not have the same rights as white people, until one day it deided they do.

The battle against abortion needs to be carried on educationally, and with prayer, and by setting examples…not with legislation.

ALL of these are needed. No-one here is claiming that legislation is the whole answer. But we were answering the question of who to vote for.

Time and time and time and again…it has been “proven beyond a shadow of a doubt” that morality cannot be legislated.

That is only true in the sense that making something immoral (such as robbing banks), illegal, does not of itself prevent people from doing it. But it certainly deters them. It is not prudent to legislate against ALL immoral behaviour, but ALL legislation is based on morality.

 

[Petergee]

Notwithstanding the error, you bring up an interesting point. Do Catholic judges have to follow Catholic doctrine in deciding constitutional law, or do they have to follow the rules for legal construction? If by following legal construction and stare decisis a Catholic judge must rule for a particular case permitting abortion, should the judge recuse himself for religious objection? It’s similar to the question must a Catholic landlord rent to co-habitating couples, when not doing so is against the law? My sense is they should, just as Catholic pharmacists should decline to dispense contraceptives based on religious objection.

None of these is really a “religious” objection. They are all moral objections based in natural law. Most obviously so in the case of abortion. Judges do not decide only on precedent and the letter of the law, but always upon their own persocal perception of morality, whether they admit this or not. The anti-abortion judge should not recuse himself, no more than should a pro-abortion judge whose own perception of morality leads him to conclude that abortion is morally good.

 

[mapleoak]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion? For Catholics, this is a central issue but some people can rationalize. What has happened?

Until Catholics and everyone for that matter stop being ‘willy-nilly’ in the voting booth when it comes to cadidates’ stance on abortion, we will never have the true pro-life agenda represented in government. We lost that long ago.
What has happened? I think it has much to do with our comfort culture and unwillingness to possibly cause discomfort by example or challenge. It extends to the work place and elsewhere in that people are ashamed of their values because they would rather get along or be ‘liked’. It has to do with that fact that abortion is out of sight and therefore a non-issue to many. Vote for only what affects me, what can I get out of it?
I can think of no issue we are facing in our world today that would outweigh a candidates stance on abortion. If the candidate is pro-death in ANY way, they don’t deserve to be elected.

 

[Renton405]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion? For Catholics, this is a central issue but some people can rationalize. What has happened?

these people aren’t true Catholics and they are supossed to be denied communion… They are a disgrace to all christians…

 

[joab]

In the past elections, as I was teaching in CCD to freshmen, I brought up the label of pro-life. Pro-life is against abortions, everyone agreed. However, a pro-life candidate was the greatest thing since sliced bread reguardless of the death penalty. This particular candidate had sanctioned the death penalty numerous times. He was going to stop abortions according to my young class. Imagine their disapointment when, now voting age, abortion is still happening and nothing was done about it. I tried to tell them at the time, that the politician can do little about abortions, I also tried to tell them to be pro-life respects ALL life. I am very concerned that all children be allowed to be born. I am also concerned with all children being allowed to die a natural death. Not put to death, starved to death, beaten to death, etc.

How am I to vote for a “Pro-life” candidate who is comfortable with the death penalty. Is that not wrong to be calling oneself a Pro-life candidate and hasten death for a human being already born?

That is my problem with voting for a pro-life candidate. Is s/he really pro-life or only anti-abortion? Some call themselves Catholic, all of them call themselves Christians.

 

[aristotle]

Abortion trumps all other issues, always.

So how do we really know who’se policies will increase abortions and who’se will not?

Maybe the person who is nominally pro-abortion (claims to be so, and votes for abortion rights) actually holds a different view that I believe will be more effective in limiting and eliminating abortions, ultimately.

 

[bilop]

In the past elections, as I was teaching in CCD to freshmen, I brought up the label of pro-life. Pro-life is against abortions, everyone agreed. However, a pro-life candidate was the greatest thing since sliced bread reguardless of the death penalty. This particular candidate had sanctioned the death penalty numerous times. He was going to stop abortions according to my young class. Imagine their disapointment when, now voting age, abortion is still happening and nothing was done about it. I tried to tell them at the time, that the politician can do little about abortions, I also tried to tell them to be pro-life respects ALL life. I am very concerned that all children be allowed to be born. I am also concerned with all children being allowed to die a natural death. Not put to death, starved to death, beaten to death, etc.

How am I to vote for a “Pro-life” candidate who is comfortable with the death penalty. Is that not wrong to be calling oneself a Pro-life candidate and hasten death for a human being already born?

That is my problem with voting for a pro-life candidate. Is s/he really pro-life or only anti-abortion? Some call themselves Catholic, all of them call themselves Christians.

The difference is that the death penalty is not the taking of an innocent life (murder). The Church has long held that governments have the right to impose the death penalty (see Aquinas). The death penalty is an area of prudential judgement, like warmaking/just war doctrine.

A Catholic is free to support or oppose the death penalty (as well as particular wars) based on their own judgement. Not so with Abortion (or Euthanasia etc.) which are always wrong.

God Bless