Should the Church deny Pelosi and Biden the Eucharist?

[Arandur]

As the US is not a Catholic country, and it is based on the principles of majority rule. If the majority believes that life does not begin at conception, why should we be using the similar nefarious means to make aboriton illegal as were used to make it legal in the first place?

If the majority would not raftify a 28th Amendment redefining life, then we, the probably minority … well … that’s the way our country works.

Our country was also built with measures to protect the minority (the unborn) from the tyranny of the majority. It was further designed to protect certain basic human rights (to life) from being violated even by a strong majority. That’s why the Bill of Rights exists and the rest of the Constitution is focused on establishing limitations to the power of government, and why it is so difficult to change the Constitution. Even a supermajority of legislators is not supposed to be able to overcome the protections of our basic rights in our Constitution–hence the SCOTUS.

So yes, of course we can appeal to the SCOTUS to recognize the right to life that is enshrined in our founding documents. Roe v. Wade is understood by many who don’t even have a dog in the abortion fight to be bad law. At the very least, they tend to agree that it should not have countermanded states’ rights to decide on the issue. Thus an appeal to the SCOTUS is more likely to eliminate a federal policy and allow states to individually ban and restrict abortions than it is to ban abortions over the will of the states. This allows us to protect life through state legislation until such time as we can get a U.S. Constitutional amendment passed. However, due to what is written in the Constitution, the SCOTUS would also be justified in recognizing the right to life, its pre-eminence over any other rights, and its applicability to the unborn as established in sound science. Thus they may impose a federal ban (though I don’t think it likely). This would be a perfectly legitimate use of our nation’s governing principles and bodies.

I will say again that waging this battle for life in the public square, getting protection passed through government, is instrumental in changing minds and hearts in this secular nation. So many people equate legality with morality that when something is permitted legally, they think it is morally acceptable as well. When abortion is justly outlawed and the right to life protected by law, more hearts and minds will have the confusing impediment of improper law removed so that their moral formation is not burdened by such immoral law. “A ‘good’ society is a society that helps us to be good.” C.S. Lewis (I think)

Do you still disagree with the strategy, then?

 

[Scottgun]

From Evangelium Vitae

Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

Notice there is no disclaimer that says, “applies only to confessionally Catholic countries”. Laws permitting abortion = illegitimate laws.

 

[elvisman]

CAF and EWTN are rampant with people who behave like they and their opinions are above their pastors, their bishops, and the Magesterium. I won’t be “getting over it” any time soon.

How unfortunate for you.

But, again, nobody was behaving like their opinions were abover their bishops and priests. They were expressing their opinions.

If your sensibilities are that delicate, maybe CAF is not for you.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil, people or I will have to close the thread.

 

[benedictgal]

I re-read this interesting piece, “Obama and the Bishops”, written by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. He writes in part that:

In recent months, an unusually large number of bishops have been assertive, articulate, and even bold, in their public affirmation of the demands of moral reason and the Church’s teaching. Some estimate the number of such bishops to be over a hundred. Critics of these bishops, including Catholic fronts for the Obama campaign, claim that bishops have only spoken out because prominent Democrats stepped on their toes by egregiously misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Why only? It is the most particular duty of bishops to see that the authentic teaching of the Church is safeguarded and honestly communicated.

Not all bishops covered themselves with honor in the doing of their duty. Ignoring their further duty to protect the integrity of the Eucharist and defend against the faithful’s being led into confusion, temptation, and sin by skandolon, some bishops issued statements explaining why they had no intention of addressing the problem of public figures who claim they are Catholics in good standing despite their consistent rejection of the Church’s teaching on the defense of innocent human lives. Some such bishops took the position that publicly doing or saying anything that addressed that very public problem would be viewed as controversial, condemned as politically partisan, and misconstrued by those hostile to the Church. Therefore, they explained, they were doing and saying nothing except to say why they were doing and saying nothing. Such calculated timidity falls embarrassingly short of the apostolic zeal exemplified by the apostles whose successors the bishops are. Fortunately, these timorous shepherds seem to be in the minority among the bishops.

Others seem to have taken to heart in this Pauline Year the counsel of Paul to Timothy: “Fight the good fight . . . I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

These are strong words, but, I am reminded of two other men by the name of John (borrowing from Father’s middle name) who spoke rather forcefully and clearly. St. John Fisher openly defied King Henry VIII on the matter of his divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon. He was not afraid to challenge the king on a stand that was completely against the teachings of the Church. He stood his ground to the point of losing his head.

The other was St. John the Baptist. He, too, stood his ground and said many things that didn’t sit too well with the religious and political authorities of his day. He called some of the pharisees a brood of vipers and he also challenged King Herod on his marriage to Herodias. Like his British namesake, the Baptist’s stand led to his martyrdom, but, he remained steadfast in his commitment.

The Apostolic Administrator for the Archdiocese of St. Louis did not mince words when he told the USCCB that the bishops should be willing to give up their lives to protect the unborn. Those are strong words, but, the cause is strong.

As Fr. Neuhaus noted:

The reading for Mass on the day following the election was Philippians 2, in which St. Paul prays that the faithful “may be blameless and innocent children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world.” That is as pertinent now as it was in the first century, and will be until our Lord returns in glory. It is the business of bishops to help equip the faithful to let the splendor of moral truth shine through their life and witness as lights in the world. If, on occasion, that coincides with political success, it is to be viewed as an unexpected, albeit welcome, bonus. It is a grievous degradation of their pastoral office, as well as a political delusion, for bishops to see themselves as managers of the Catholic voting bloc.

Earlier this year, the bishops issued “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” It was, as I wrote at the time, a fine statement in almost every respect. But its elaborate attention to nuance and painstaking distinctions made it a virtual invitation for the Catholic flaks of Obama to turn it upside down and inside out. The statement was regularly invoked to justify voting for the most extreme proponent of the unlimited abortion license in American presidential history.

That unintended invitation to distort, eagerly seized upon by those with a mind to do so, was especially evident in the statement’s treatment of a “proportionate” reason to support pro-abortion candidates. The bishops must do better next time. To be sure, any statement must be carefully reasoned, as Catholic moral theology is carefully reasoned. Yet an episcopal statement is not an invitation to an academic seminar but, above all, a call to faithfulness. The task is to offer a firm, unambiguous, and, as much as possible, a persuasive case on the basis of revelation and clear reason.

The bishops are supposed to be strong shepherds and not fall prey to the winds of relativism. They need to call a spade a spade and tell those Catholic politicos that they are wrong in supporting the false notion of “choice”. You cannot put your political prestige and your career ahead of the principles of your Church. Party ideolgy must take a back seat, or even a rumble seat to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Aramis]

Not necessarily. Roe V Wade was decided by the USSC. Any votes they take now can not change that decision and if in violation of it, would be thrown out.

Unless it is a constitutional amendment. The courts may not overrule an amendment.

This is the route the states of Alaska and California have taken to eradicate so-called “Gay Marriage” which was irresponsibly and unlawfully imposed by the courts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Aramis;

Unless it is a constitutional amendment. The courts may not overrule an amendment.

Right. But what attempts have been made by Republicans or Democrats, to have an amendment to the Constitution, that would protect the life of the unborn?

You will never see it, because the issue from a medical stand point, is too complex to merely define in an amendment. You’d have doctors being charged with manslaughter, for performing a procedure to protect the life and health of the mother.

This is why the morality of abortion is in the hands of the mother and the doctor who carries it out. They are the one’s who the Church must educate. You can not legislate morality that the general public isn’t in agreement on.

This is the route the states of Alaska and California have taken to eradicate so-called “Gay Marriage” which was irresponsibly and unlawfully imposed by the courts.

Good for them and the court just upheld the passage of prop-8, if I heard the news correctly.

Unfortunately for us here in Massachusetts, our legislature ignored the petition drawn up by us citizens, and voted against putting the question to amend our constitution on the ballot. It can be brought back for another 2 years.

Jim

 

[Arandur]

Right. But what attempts have been made by Republicans or Democrats, to have an amendment to the Constitution, that would protect the life of the unborn?

You will never see it, because the issue from a medical stand point, is too complex to merely define in an amendment. You’d have doctors being charged with manslaughter, for performing a procedure to protect the life and health of the mother.

This is why the morality of abortion is in the hands of the mother and the doctor who carries it out. They are the one’s who the Church must educate. You can not legislate morality that the general public isn’t in agreement on.

Jim, you cannot persist in your state of ignorance or in continuing to assert this falsehood. I have here on this thread I think at least twice demonstrated that what you have claimed is not true. Pro-Life Republicans have been instrumental in proposing abortion bans as constitutional amendments as recently as this last election, in Colorado and South Dakota. Both of these were highly publicized. South Dakota had tried in past elections to get a ban passed, but had to revise its wording.

The most recent amendment almost passed, and it DID contain exceptions for the life of the mother. It was fairly precise about under what conditions could be considered for that, since the abortion movement has long heinously abused “health” exception clauses to include such minor things as headaches and emotional distress (neither of which requiring a medical opinion or evaluation).

This amendment was explicitly designed knowing that it would end up going to the SCOTUS and challenging Roe v. Wade.

Please stop spreading falsehoods. Please stop blaming Republicans when they HAVE done the very things that you are accusing them of not doing (and I’m sure the recent proposals were not the only ones in the past few decades). And stop using them to spread confusion and promote the tendency of people to try to justify away their actions by blaming other people for things they supposedly have not done.

Please admit that what you are saying is false or challenge the facts that I have presented. If you continue on this course yet again, I will call you out for deliberately spreading lies in an attempt to obfuscate the issue and lead people astray, which is tantamount to helping pro-abortionists maintain free and unrestricted access to abortion. Catholics need to come to grips with the truth and unite on this issue.

 

[MusicMan]

Arandur, is abortion still legal? Yes? Then no one has done enough.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Arandur;

Jim, you cannot persist in your state of ignorance or in continuing to assert this falsehood.

OK, I’m an ignorant liar.

I have here on this thread I think at least twice demonstrated that what you have claimed is not true. Pro-Life Republicans have been instrumental in proposing abortion bans as constitutional amendments as recently as this last election, in Colorado and South Dakota. Both of these were highly publicized. South Dakota had tried in past elections to get a ban passed, but had to revise its wording.

Those were not amendments to the US Constitution, but amendments to their own state Constitution or statutes.

The most recent amendment almost passed, and it DID contain exceptions for the life of the mother.

Good, its too bad that “life of the mother clause” was not added in other pieces of legislation, they might have passed. But the Republicans, using the issue for political clout among their base, vote against such amendments and the bill fails.

It was fairly precise about under what conditions could be considered for that, since the abortion movement has long heinously abused “health” exception clauses to include such minor things as headaches and emotional distress (neither of which requiring a medical opinion or evaluation).

No, the bills are not precise about conditions, because the conditions are too complex for a piece of legislation to handle.

This amendment was explicitly designed knowing that it would end up going to the SCOTUS and challenging Roe v. Wade.

And it won’t make it through the courts if its going to challenge Roe V Wade, because the courts follow precedent.

Please stop spreading falsehoods.

Please stop calling me a liar, you’re hurting my feelings.

We’re sharing opinions based on our information and of course, I know I’m right.

God Bless
Jim