C
Catholic_Press
Guest
Washington, DC, May. 22, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The US bishops’ conference has issued a rebuke to a group of 18 Democratic legislators who objected to a …
Full article…
Full article…
- Status
P
PLAL
Guest
May 18, 2007
**
Priests tell pro-abort politicians to quit one or the other**
I’m not **Catholic **but appreciate the faith for many reasons, the foremost being its strong stand against abortion.
Last week the Pope, answering a reporter’s question whether Catholic pro-abortion politicians should be excommunicated, said, “Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ.”
Eighteen pro-abort Catholic members of the U.S. House had the gall to write a letter reprimanding the Pope, including this hogwash even a pig would roll its eyes at:
We are concerned with the pope’s recent statement warning Catholic elected officials that they risk excommunication and would not receive communion for their pro-choice views. Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission.But now two wonder priests are calling these bullies on their bluff. One has told the Gang of 18 to resign from politics if they can’t function in keeping with Church teachings, and the other has said to resign from the Church if they can’t. I love it…
MORE…
jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/priests_invite.html#comments
**
Priests tell pro-abort politicians to quit one or the other**
I’m not **Catholic **but appreciate the faith for many reasons, the foremost being its strong stand against abortion.
Last week the Pope, answering a reporter’s question whether Catholic pro-abortion politicians should be excommunicated, said, “Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ.”
Eighteen pro-abort Catholic members of the U.S. House had the gall to write a letter reprimanding the Pope, including this hogwash even a pig would roll its eyes at:
We are concerned with the pope’s recent statement warning Catholic elected officials that they risk excommunication and would not receive communion for their pro-choice views. Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission.But now two wonder priests are calling these bullies on their bluff. One has told the Gang of 18 to resign from politics if they can’t function in keeping with Church teachings, and the other has said to resign from the Church if they can’t. I love it…
MORE…
jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/priests_invite.html#comments
D
Della
Guest
S
stbruno
Guest
Let’s hope the 18 democrats get the message, that we stand up for the values espoused by our church and her spiritual leader.
I think they just put not only their foot in the mouth, but it’s on record for everyone to read.
I think they just put not only their foot in the mouth, but it’s on record for everyone to read.
S
stbruno
Guest
I just received a link to a wonderful response to the letter by the 18 Democrats…Not just the official one by the USCCB which was effective, but also one that suggests that this diatribe borders on something that happened in France by the National Assembly in 1790. It explains something of the errors of Gallicanism and Jansenism which centuries ago took France under Philip the Fair and Austria under Joseph II, to the brink of schism.
tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/us_representatives_challenge_papacy_and_hint_at_old_heresies.htm
tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/us_representatives_challenge_papacy_and_hint_at_old_heresies.htm
E
emily47017
Guest
i must respectfully disagree with the bishops.
the separation of church and state in this country demands that politicians respect the right of members of different religions to disagree, even on such fundamental and spiritually challenging issues as abortion. people who support abortion rights have equally strong moral convictions, and should have the freedom to act and/or practice medicine within the (different) bounds of their consciences.
you may vehemently disagree with their position, and that’s absolutely okay. i don’t think any politician, catholic or no, believes that abortion is fun or morally neutral, and most are personally opposed to it. as a matter of law, however, their first responsibility is to protect the rights of others who disagree.
in china, as we know, women are frequently forced to have abortions because the state believes it’s morally necessary – to keep population growth in check. there’s no protection for religious expression in china, so those who vehemently disagree on religious or other moral grounds don’t have any rights in the matter. this is obviously wrong and horrible and sickening and unconscionable, and god help those families who are suffering and god help those officials who cause the suffering.
our separation of church and state (with its two elements: congress can’t force you to practice a religion, nor can they forbid you to practice a religion) is meant to prevent such awful situation as these. it’s painful, but in order to keep our country from one extreme, we have to stay away from the other extreme as well.
(ducking head to avoid objects hurled in my direction)
the separation of church and state in this country demands that politicians respect the right of members of different religions to disagree, even on such fundamental and spiritually challenging issues as abortion. people who support abortion rights have equally strong moral convictions, and should have the freedom to act and/or practice medicine within the (different) bounds of their consciences.
you may vehemently disagree with their position, and that’s absolutely okay. i don’t think any politician, catholic or no, believes that abortion is fun or morally neutral, and most are personally opposed to it. as a matter of law, however, their first responsibility is to protect the rights of others who disagree.
in china, as we know, women are frequently forced to have abortions because the state believes it’s morally necessary – to keep population growth in check. there’s no protection for religious expression in china, so those who vehemently disagree on religious or other moral grounds don’t have any rights in the matter. this is obviously wrong and horrible and sickening and unconscionable, and god help those families who are suffering and god help those officials who cause the suffering.
our separation of church and state (with its two elements: congress can’t force you to practice a religion, nor can they forbid you to practice a religion) is meant to prevent such awful situation as these. it’s painful, but in order to keep our country from one extreme, we have to stay away from the other extreme as well.
(ducking head to avoid objects hurled in my direction)
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Yes, you are right on one count: politicians have the obligation to protect people’s legal right to disagree with the Church. The also, however, have a right to preserve the sanctity and dignity of every human life, and supporting pro-abortion legislation runs contrary to that principle.
Would you defend a politician’s right to promote or support your right to commit infanticide? If so, why? If not, how is that different from supporting your right to abortion? Does it really make a difference that whether or not the child has been born yet?
Peace,
Dante
C
CCM08
Guest
First, there is no such thing as “separation of Church and state.” It’s an urban legend, and is not part of American jurisprudence. The personal letters of Thomas Jefferson are not law. That said, the state certainly cannot tell churches what to believe. However, religions certainly can tell their members what they must believe and perscribe punishments or explusions for those that do not. The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to abortion, it is an act of murder. It certainly has a right to establish that you may not be a member in good standing (or a member at all) if you support the murder of unborn children.
E
emily47017
Guest
yes, of course the catholic church has every right to establish its standards for membership.
my point, though, is that there’s a difference between personal support of abortion and public/political support for abortion rights. i think it’s unfortunate that the church doesn’t make this distinction, because it’s the kind of distinction that does become important when governments are liable to flip from one extreme to the other depending on who’s in power at the time.
it seems to me that people of faith are the ones most likely to suffer if either A) politics comes to be seen as impossible to reconcile with faith, or B) politics are completely subsumed by faith – either no one in government has any spiritual guidance at all, or no one in government has any respect for any religion other than their own.
please understand, i completely empathize with the view that abortion is murder. i respect that position as valid, logically sound, and possessing great spiritual integrity.
i also respect the opposite position as being valid, sound and spiritual. it’s an issue that people of good will can and do disagree on. that doesn’t mean the disagreement is always civil and kind. :nope:
thomas jefferson was the first to use the metaphor, but others of the time including james madison also used it extensively. the US supreme court used it (unfavorably) in an 1878 decision against mormon polygamy. in the mid-twentieth century the court used it (favorably) many, many times. the present court doesn’t use it, though it usually seeks to protect the first amendment’s establishment clause anyway.
urhg. sorry if that was wonkish. that kind of lecture probably doesn’t belong in this thread anyway.
my point, though, is that there’s a difference between personal support of abortion and public/political support for abortion rights. i think it’s unfortunate that the church doesn’t make this distinction, because it’s the kind of distinction that does become important when governments are liable to flip from one extreme to the other depending on who’s in power at the time.
it seems to me that people of faith are the ones most likely to suffer if either A) politics comes to be seen as impossible to reconcile with faith, or B) politics are completely subsumed by faith – either no one in government has any spiritual guidance at all, or no one in government has any respect for any religion other than their own.
please understand, i completely empathize with the view that abortion is murder. i respect that position as valid, logically sound, and possessing great spiritual integrity.
i also respect the opposite position as being valid, sound and spiritual. it’s an issue that people of good will can and do disagree on. that doesn’t mean the disagreement is always civil and kind. :nope:
this isn’t an issue that people of good will disagree on. i suppose there are some societies that are isolated enough that infanticide is still (borderline?) acceptable to them, but in the west it’s not a belief that differs from one religion to another. not even militant atheists are slapping pro-infanticide stickers on their cars. religious freedom doesn’t apply here.
i believe it does, for a number of reasons. most of those reasons are easily swept aside by opponents of abortion rights as unimportant/frivolous/irrelevant, so i hope you’ll understand that i don’t want to argue that here. it’s not my aim to change anyone’s mind, just to gently point out that different people hold different moral positions, and that a country that stands for freedom of religion must respect those differences.
i’m sorry, this is incorrect.
thomas jefferson was the first to use the metaphor, but others of the time including james madison also used it extensively. the US supreme court used it (unfavorably) in an 1878 decision against mormon polygamy. in the mid-twentieth century the court used it (favorably) many, many times. the present court doesn’t use it, though it usually seeks to protect the first amendment’s establishment clause anyway.
urhg. sorry if that was wonkish. that kind of lecture probably doesn’t belong in this thread anyway.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Yes, there is a difference – it is the difference between formal and material cooperation in evil. By supporting “abortion rights” in order to preserve personal liberty, one is at best materially cooperating in evil – but then only if “personal liberty” can be shown to be of proportionate importance to mitigate the evil of killing unborn children.
Can you demonstrate how personal liberty is as important as life? The Church holds that it is not:
You go on to say that
Religious people are far better equipped to deal with persecution than uborn children are able to deal with being killed. This is moot.
The real issue is not one of the encroachment of government on religion or vice versa: it is whether or not the killing of children – born or otherwise – is objectively wrong.
How can you rationalize that both sides of the argument hold validity? One side claims that abortion is murder, and the other side either claims it isn’t or claims that it’s their right to do it anyway. Both sides cannot be right here – there is no gray area, I’m afraid.
Regarding the infanticide analogy:
How do you explain the rabid opposition to the ban on partial birth abortions – a procedure in which the child is delivered and THEN killed?
Sorry, but this is precisely the point, so we MUST argue it here, especially in light of the partial birth issue.
If you hold that being outside the womb is the one thing that makes it unconscionable to kill a child, I’m curious as to how you support that assertion. So far, the best argument to that end that I’ve heard had to do with the mother’s “right to choose” – a position which either ignores or flat out denies the unborn child’s right to live.
Peace,
Dante
E
emily47017
Guest
yes, the church holds that it is not. the church does. church.
this is the heart of the difficulty in dialogue between our two sides. one side believes it is black and white, the other side believes it is very very gray. it’s not at all surprising that a gray can understand the black/white position while a black/white can’t understand the gray.
you seem to be asking me for an argument that would be potentially persuasive to you. what can i say? I don’t think i have such an argument.
what’s persuasive to me is my own confidence that a grown woman – her life, her health, her ability to care for other children if she has them – is of greater priority than a fertilized ovum. it’s not just about liberty as an abstract concept, but the freedom to sort out the complex and often tragic circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion in the first place.
i do believe that babies in the womb are babies, souls and all, but i can’t prove it and neither can you. it’s a spiritual question, and people of strong spiritual/moral convictions still don’t agree.
personally, i find intact dilation and extraction to be ghoulish, and i don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s a good idea. if the baby is alive and viable and can be removed from the mother without hurting her… why on earth would we kill the baby? here’s an issue where you and i agree.
you asked if i could explain the rabidity of the pro-choice movement, though, and i do have some thoughts…
there’s a little fable about erosion of boundaries: if you allow the camel to put his nose under the tent flap, pretty soon the camel will be all the way in the tent and you’ll be out in the cold. camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html
i know: har har. that’s a (perhaps overly simplistic) illustration of where the profound fear comes from that causes activists to resist any restriction on abortion. I would suggest that it’s also what inspired el salvador to outlaw operating on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy, even though the embryo will not live and the church allows the tube to be removed as a “diseased organ”.
no, it’s not moot, but if the church’s position is that developing a theocracy in our country is acceptable, even if that theocracy turns out to be a breathtakingly cruel one that forces women to abort against their will, then i have to throw up my hands.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Are you Catholic? If so, do you believe that the Church is the one founded by Christ himself, and to which he promised his personal protection from error?
Assuming you do believe the above, it stands to reason that the Church is right, and that there is therefore no gray area with regards to abortion. Period.
Assuming you’re not Catholic, or that you are but inexplicably don’t acknowledge the Church’s divine guidance, I’ll gladly try a different tack.
I understand the “gray” position perfectly: it’s manifest selfishness at the expense of innocent life.
If you don’t have a persuasive argument, perhaps it’s time to reassess your position.
I realize that many women do not undertake abortion lightly – that there are often external factors that make it a hard decision. In any case, these factors do not mitigate the evil that is done.
The “freedom to sort out…circumstances” is better done before one chooses to have sex outside of marriage – that is, in weighing the potential consequence (pregnancy and parenthood) of the act before selfishly indulging in it when one is not prepared to deal with the consequence.
Besides, if one is not equipped to provide for a child when one becomes pregnant, one can take comfort in the fact that there are many childless parents out there who would leap at the chance to take this inconvenience out of one’s hands.
Don’t you see that you are being relativistic here? Do you not believe that there are some things which are objectively right and some that are objectively wrong – regardless of what we might think? Again, I ask: Are you Catholic, and do you acknowledge the Church’s teaching authority as given by Christ?
Great!
I’m not familiar with El Salvador’s legal system, but I suspect it was as much due to ignorance as anything else that such a reckless law was passed.
The Church holds no such position – it merely says that politicians who consider themselves Catholic have an obligation to act according to their Catholic faith and fight against the injustice of abortion – as well as poverty, human trafficking, domestic violence, pornography, etc. Abortion, however, holds a special place in the heart of the Church because of the thousands upon thousands of innocent children who die every year for something as frivolous as the “right to choose”.
Peace,
Dante
E
emily47017
Guest
hi dante,
we’re really getting to be good friends, are we not?
not every woman who seeks to have an abortion is unmarried. not every woman seeking abortion got pregnant recklessly or accidentally. not every reason for seeking abortion is going to be solved by adoption. i have a friend whose mother risked kidney failure by bringing her to term; an amazing sacrifice! if she had chosen otherwise, though, one couldn’t simply say “hey, why not adopt out?”
i’ve known women whose hearts were broken by their abortions, but who felt that the decision was best for other people – their other children or even the baby itself. they may have been misguided in your opinion, but they were not indulging in “selfishness”.
my aim here, dante, is not to list all the circumstances when some people might or might not make an exception, but to point out that as long as you persist in characterizing the pro-choice movement as “manifest selfishness”, you’re closing yourself to the possibility of understanding where they’re coming from.
there are so many different experiences and so many different reasons women seek abortions that to paint them all with the same derisive brush is not only inaccurate, but uncompassionate. these women are hurting, and they deserve at least a few moments of reflection before you write them off.
my purpose for posting here and my position in a nutshell is this:
just because the church teaches that its own teachings are objectively right doesn’t mean that theocracy is good for faith, life, the human species, or the church itself. our government should not (must not) give precedence to one religion over another, and if that means that catholics can’t fully participate in government, then i think that’s a darn shame.
as always, YMMV.
blessings,
emily
we’re really getting to be good friends, are we not?
of course; there are always better paths one could have taken. once conception has occurred, though, you can’t turn back time. you have to figure out where to go from here.
not every woman who seeks to have an abortion is unmarried. not every woman seeking abortion got pregnant recklessly or accidentally. not every reason for seeking abortion is going to be solved by adoption. i have a friend whose mother risked kidney failure by bringing her to term; an amazing sacrifice! if she had chosen otherwise, though, one couldn’t simply say “hey, why not adopt out?”
i’ve known women whose hearts were broken by their abortions, but who felt that the decision was best for other people – their other children or even the baby itself. they may have been misguided in your opinion, but they were not indulging in “selfishness”.
my aim here, dante, is not to list all the circumstances when some people might or might not make an exception, but to point out that as long as you persist in characterizing the pro-choice movement as “manifest selfishness”, you’re closing yourself to the possibility of understanding where they’re coming from.
there are so many different experiences and so many different reasons women seek abortions that to paint them all with the same derisive brush is not only inaccurate, but uncompassionate. these women are hurting, and they deserve at least a few moments of reflection before you write them off.
to the extent that it requires a certain amount of relativism to live in a nation that protects freedom of religion, then i guess i have to say yes. i’m not a catholic, though i’m seriously considering RCIA… i’m not yet ready to accept that everything the church teaches is objectively right or that the different teachings of other religions are necessarily inferior.
my purpose for posting here and my position in a nutshell is this:
just because the church teaches that its own teachings are objectively right doesn’t mean that theocracy is good for faith, life, the human species, or the church itself. our government should not (must not) give precedence to one religion over another, and if that means that catholics can’t fully participate in government, then i think that’s a darn shame.
as always, YMMV.
blessings,
emily
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Indeed!
I agree – one must figure out the best way to deal with the consequences of one’s actions. That is, how best to provide for the well-being of a new child.
But the reason for wanting an abortion is beside the point. The fact remains that it constitutes (as you freely admitted) the murder of a helpless, innocent child – there is not a single possible justification for that.
Again, I point to the example of infanticide: what if a mother miscalculated her budget before she gave birth, or lost her job afterward? Why is she not free to eliminate the new child she can no longer afford? Why does not the “best interest of the child” argument apply? Because no right-minded human being can stomach the idea of allowing a baby to be murdered.
Why does it make a difference that the baby in my example has made it out of the womb, while an aborted child has not?
No, my dear Emily – it is the proponents of abortion who are closing themselves off to reality. There is **no reason on earth **that justifies an abortion; it is not my obligation to hear out the pro-choice side; it is my obligation to oppose it.
Freedom to practice religion is a fine and wonderful thing; it’s what allows us to practice our faith without fear of reprisal. That freedom, however, ends when our religious practice harms other people. Furthermore, a ban on abortion would be more akin to a ban on murder than it would resemble a ban on eating meat on Friday: this is a matter of justice for unborn children, not religious practice.
I’m glad to hear that you are considering RCIA – I will keep you in my prayers! It is vital that you think of this as you discern your path: it’s not about finding a faith that’s “right for you” – that fits your beliefs. It’s about finding the church that teaches the truth – objective truth.
The tenet of our faith you must pray and pray and pray about is the one I first mentioned: that this is the Church founded by Christ, and to which he promised divine guidance to protect it from error and failure.
And Catholics are obligated to defend the faith – not institute theocracy. A Catholic politician must use his faith as his moral compass to decide whether a particular legislation is right or wrong, just as an atheist might use ACLU talking points to make such a decision. THAT is freedom of religion.
The heck does YMMV mean?
Peace,
Dante
A
AP4Him
Guest
Why stop at the fertlized ovum? Can we insert the following:
her life, her health, her ability to care for other children if she has them – is of greater priority than a newborn baby.
her life, her health, her ability to care for other children if she has them – is of greater priority than a preschooler.
her life, her health, her ability to care for other children if she has them – is of greater priority than a 6-year old kid.
her life, her health, her ability to care for other children if she has them – is of greater priority than a 16-year old.
If you believe that that ‘fertilized ovum’ is really a person, then you should agree with killing said person at any stage, for exactly the same reasons. Why not? If inserting older kids made you nervous, then you clearly do not think an in-womb baby is a person, for whatever reason, and you need help with that.
E
emily47017
Guest
if this your approach, perhaps you ought not to be making the claim:
hard to understand a position without hearing it out, no?
yes, and this is the heart of the matter, as i’ve been saying. different religions differ on the question of what harms whom and who harms what and what harm is more harmful to whom… i feel woozy. :hypno:
some people believe very strongly that there are never any situations when abortion is acceptable. it is absolutely totally one hundred percent okay to believe that.
some people believe very strongly that there are exceptions, and that if abortion is outlawed a greater harm will be done to the women who – for millions of reasons – can’t carry a pregnancy to term.
i’m getting weary of whatifs, but what if:
my friend’s mom, mrs. p, went to the doctor and was told that her kidneys were in great danger, and that the prospect of mrs. p spending the rest of her life on dialysis was a greater harm than the death of my future friend, and even though she opposed abortion, nope, sorry, the state had to intervene on behalf of her kidneys.
the heartlessness of this scenario is not unlike the heartlessness that pro-choicers see when presented with the opposite scenario. i don’t expect you to hear/understand/empathize with that, since you’ve expressed a disinclination to try.
but here’s the crux (as it were): if the difference between one position and the other is spiritually based, and if there’s nothing approaching consensus on the matter, a free society has to err on the side of liberty.
please. the ACLU doesn’t threaten excommunication.
Your Mileage May Vary.
blessings,
emily
E
emily47017
Guest
i reject this notion. as i said before, it’s a spiritual question, and people of strong spiritual/moral convictions still don’t agree. until we do, we live in a country that requires us to make room for one another.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually the question of when human life begins is scientific, not spiritual, and science has a fairly simple answer: a new life begins at conception.
embryo.chronolab.com/fertilization.htm
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t think you understand what the Church is saying. The Church does not excommunicate people who formally cooperate with abortion - she is warning that they excommunicate themselves. It’s like posting a warning sign above the third rail in a subway. If a person ignores the warning and electrocutes himself would you blame the person who put up the sign? You need to understand the difference between a threat and a warning.
Ender
E
emily47017
Guest
“may be considered” is hardly a statement of scientific certainty. chronolab is a diagnostic laboratory, not an organization devoted to embryology, and their atlas is hardly representative of “science” as an enormous body of knowledge and inquiry. i don’t see any endorsement of their atlas by anyone else in the medical community.
i’m sure it’s full of useful and accurate information, but siezing on that one phrase and slapping the label “science” on it is a bit of a stretch.
i’m sure it’s full of useful and accurate information, but siezing on that one phrase and slapping the label “science” on it is a bit of a stretch.
*touché! *my objection was to the juxtaposition of the church and the ACLU as demanding the same level of loyalty. you can oppose abortion rights and still be a full member of the ACLU. (you can count on them giving you the hairy eyeball, though.)
- Status