Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion

[estesbob]

OK.

You all win.

Yes, there are people who are more informed about abortion now. That is progress.

As far as Roe v Wade, keep up the “refuse to negotiate” theme, and you can ride that as long as you live, and your descendants can pick up on it and still never win.

Last year, my political science professor, who is himself a conservative pro-life Republican (and is the first one some TV cameras go to in the town for political opinions on current events) but is respected and known personally by many state, US and local politicians and knows the people involved, confirmed my theory that their “all or nothing” strategy was destined to lose, whereas they may have saved babies had they listened to me and called the governor’s bluff. The governor knew he’d never have to sign a bill, because he knew they would never deliver one to him under a condition he could easily sell to the public.

But go ahead and do it your way. If you don’t grasp what I’m telling you now – not about morality but about strategy and keeping our public messages free of logical self-contradictions – then I give up.

We have been pursuing an incremental strategy since Roe was imposed. And of course we received great criticism from the purists who claim that unless we are aggressively pushing to stop all abortions immediately ,including those from rape and incest, says we are not truly pro-life. Are those your tell us we’re not really pro-lifer to support the death penalty or oppose increased funding for social programs yada yada yada. You see it’s never enough. And the fact that abortion remains legal in this country is, of course, the fault of those dedicated to the pro-life ministry. You see we are hypocrites, stubborn, unreasonable, uncompromising and of course do not care a whit about the child once they are born. And of course those who support abortion are not held to the same standards-in fact the attitude seems to be that other than the fact they support the slaughter of innocents they are the epitome of compassion, justice and common sense
,

 

[Suudy]

And of course those who support abortion are not held to the same standards-in fact the attitude seems to be that other than the fact they support the slaughter of innocents they are the epitome of compassion, justice and common sense
,

“Better dead than underfed,” no?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, that is exactly what the church teaches.as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable…God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty. (Pius XII, To the San Luca Medical-Biologicial Union, 1944)

“Thou shalt not kill:” The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; (Pius XI, Casti Connubii 64)
Ender

This is what the Church teaches from Evangelium Vitae…

*#87 Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. We need then to “show care” for all life and for the life of everyone. Indeed, at an even deeper level, we need to go to the very roots of life and love.

#9 Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth.*

When you continue to present the teachings of the past given to the flock experiencing other situations… in order to undermine the teachings of the Church to todays flock which far from contradicting the past teachings, enrich and enlighten them… you are deliberately creating division and dissent. I notice even on this thread that certain people have begun to parrot your ‘prudential judgement’ ‘oh these are only just opinions of a man’ mantras in order to dismiss the Church’s clear and forceful call to abolish the death penalty.

Phrases like ‘consistent ethic of life’ and ‘intrinsic dignity’ are the Churchs clear message to us that we are to regard life as sacred, even the life of murderers and limit our recourse to non lethal punishment if killing is not strictly necessary for the safety of the community. This issue of the death penalty was not even on my Catholic radar for most of my life until I found internet forums because I’ve never lived within a capital punishment system. Nor my parents or grandparents. Capital punishment to me and my countrymen has no political meaning whatsoever.

It’s been interesting over the last few years observing the transition of American catholics from being forcefully pro death penalty to embracing the teachings of the Magisterium to adopt a consistent ethic of life and rejecting it the dp. It was surprising to realise the number of Catholics who didn’t even know of the Churchs position or Pope StJPII’s clear, forceful statements.

We know what the Church is asking of us as Catholics and we know there is no contradiction between what was taught in the past and what is taught now. They are all perspectives of the one consistent truth. Nothing is lost or forsaken since the ultimate goal remains the same.

"In some ways, an approach to criminal justice that is inspired by a Catholic vision is a paradox. We cannot and will not tolerate behavior that threatens lives and violates the rights of others. We believe in responsibility, accountability, and legitimate punishment. Those who harm others or damage property must be held accountable for the hurt they have caused. The community has a right to establish and enforce laws to protect people and to advance the common good.

At the same time, a Catholic approach does not give up on those who violate these laws. We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.

We believe a Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice can offer some alternatives. It recognizes that root causes and personal choices can both be factors in crime by understanding the need for responsibility on the part of the offender and an opportunity for their rehabilitation. A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law." - USCCB

 

[Ender]

This is what the Church teaches from Evangelium Vitae…

When you continue to present the teachings of the past given to the flock experiencing other situations… in order to undermine the teachings of the Church to todays flock which far from contradicting the past teachings, enrich and enlighten them…

If the teachings of today do not contradict those of the past why do you object when I cite those of even the recent past? Pius XII’s comments were from the 1950s. I was addressing a very specific point regarding whether there was a church teaching that all innocent life was inviolable. To that end I cited two statements exactly addressing that question. How does your citation from EV clarify this? JPII said*“human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation”*
The problem is that if it means life can never be taken under any circumstance it contradicts what the church has explicitly allowed throughout her entire existence. More to the point, it contradicts what JPII himself said when he allowed capital punishment in certain rare cases. Not only would that interpretation make capital punishment objectively evil but war and killing in self defense would be as well. Therefore that cannot be an accurate interpretation of this remark…leaving the comments of Pius XII and Pius XI as the more precise explanations.

Phrases like ‘consistent ethic of life’ and ‘intrinsic dignity’ are the Churchs clear message to us that we are to regard life as sacred, even the life of murderers…

Sacred yes, untouchable no.

It’s been interesting over the last few years observing the transition of American catholics from being forcefully pro death penalty to embracing the teachings of the Magisterium to adopt a consistent ethic of life and rejecting it the dp.

Since the opposition to capital punishment within the church has only surfaced in the last 40 years, if you are right it would appear that the church herself lacked a consistent ethic of life for most of her existence. Is this what you expect people to believe?

We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law. USCCB

This kind of muddle is what one would expect from the USCCB. It should surely know what the church teaches about the purposes of punishment, that there are not two but four of them, and that justice is achieved from satisfying the primary objective, which unsurprisingly is one they didn’t even mention.

We believe a Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice … leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law." - USCCB

This is not how the church sees the matter.*‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned** not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself**. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. *(Pius XII)
Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The end result is this:

“Pro-life” is a concept that envelops a great deal more than a sound bite term for a group of political allies trying to get abortion outlawed.

But some here are saying that I do an injustice to “pro-lifers” by saying that basically they are “anti-abort” then others are saying that using “pro-life” to mean anything other than “anti-abort” will make the term meaningless. So what one poster requires of my description, is prohibited by another. :whacky: So obviously I can’t please all.

But is the issue of whether the “death penalty” should be continued in its current form, or modified or banned, a “pro-life” issue? Yes, of course. How can it not be?

 

[SWolf]

But is the issue of whether the “death penalty” should be continued in its current form, or modified or banned, a “pro-life” issue? Yes, of course. How can it not be?

It’s disingenuous to debate over a hundred posts with well-read, intelligent people and assert, at the end, one’s position as self-explanatory after being given considerable evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

It’s disingenuous to debate over a hundred posts with well-read, intelligent people and assert, at the end, one’s position as self-explanatory after being given considerable evidence to the contrary.

So may this personal blather be construed as your disagreeing that “death penalty” is a “pro-life” issue?

Why do you spend so much time and energy arguing about the way I write, rather than just answering and responding directly and honestly?

 

[LongingSoul]

If the teachings of today do not contradict those of the past why do you object when I cite those of even the recent past? Pius XII’s comments were from the 1950s. I was addressing a very specific point regarding whether there was a church teaching that all innocent life was inviolable. To that end I cited two statements exactly addressing that question. How does your citation from EV clarify this? JPII said*“human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation”*
The problem is that if it means life can never be taken under any circumstance it contradicts what the church has explicitly allowed throughout her entire existence. More to the point, it contradicts what JPII himself said when he allowed capital punishment in certain rare cases. Not only would that interpretation make capital punishment objectively evil but war and killing in self defense would be as well. Therefore that cannot be an accurate interpretation of this remark…leaving the comments of Pius XII and Pius XI as the more precise explanations.

I object because as you demonstrate by these paragraphs, the reason you post from Pius XII and XI, is precisely to contradict Pope StJPII. As seen through these debates there are many teachings from age to age that can be used to negate each other if that’s how you roll. The Church acknowledges that doctrine develops and speaks from different perspectives to the one unchanging principle being upheld over time. That’s not a phenomenon unique to the Church. Anthropologists and philosophers and pretty much all disciplines of study honour that reality of the world.

Since the opposition to capital punishment within the church has only surfaced in the last 40 years, if you are right it would appear that the church herself lacked a consistent ethic of life for most of her existence. Is this what you expect people to believe?

The Church didn’t invent capital punishment and neither did the Jews or Noah. It has always existed in the human experience as a practical part of human justice. God let us know through the prophets that its use as a practical matter of human justice was defensible. It didn’t suddenly come to us as a ‘new commandment’ ie. ‘Thou shall kill criminals at your own discretion in accordance with your own definition of My retribution as if you were Me.’

We regard the justifications for its use as punishment, as defenses of its practical value to the community. That is intrinsic to the doctrine from day one. The right has always been attached to its value in the defense of life.

This kind of muddle is what one would expect from the USCCB.

Charming. Such a deep lack of respect for the Bishops and esteem for yourself.

It should surely know what the church teaches about the purposes of punishment, that there are not two but four of them, and that justice is achieved from satisfying the primary objective, which unsurprisingly is one they didn’t even mention.

Justice is achieved by the practical measures allowed by the state to redress the disorder to the common good. In doing this, the state emulates the divine retribution that God alone exacts in heaven.

"All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. "

Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II Q108 Art2

"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice." - Cardinal Avery Dulles

We believe a Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice … leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law." - USCCB

This is not how the church sees the matter.‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned** not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself**. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. (Pius XII)
Ender

To post Pope Pius XII whose words clearly are in defense of the states use of capital punishment at the time he was living… to ‘contradict’ Popes and bishops who clearly defend the communities desire to abolish the death penalty today… is just unacademic and devious and I’ll even go further. It’s immoral. There are those who believe that the death penalty serves a good purpose now even in the ‘culture of death’. They are entitled to that belief according to the Church. You on the other hand are proposing that there are no circumstances where capital punishment could ever be abolished according to your interpretation of the doctrine. That is clearly a huge mistake on your part and you should work a lot harder to overcome your barriers so that you can embrace the Magisterium with faith.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s disingenuous to debate over a hundred posts with well-read, intelligent people and assert, at the end, one’s position as self-explanatory after being given considerable evidence to the contrary.

What?? I’m wondering if you, swolf, know that there is a world outside the four walls of the United States, that lives and breathes and thrives and has thoroughly rejected the death penalty over the last century? You seem to believe that only a couple of American forum posters with no theological expertise… are the definitive world experts on the Church teaching regarding the death penalty. shakes head in bewilderment A more correct argument could be made that the US cultural love of the capital punishment their style is so obviously and blindly contradicting all the evidence of natural and divine law that is manifest in the world today.

 

[Suudy]

I object because as you demonstrate by these paragraphs, the reason you post from Pius XII and XI, is precisely to contradict Pope StJPII.

I’ll let Ender respond to the rest of your post, but I don’t think that’s his point at all. I think his point is that we must consider the totality of Church teaching. JPII’s words weren’t meant as a repudiation of earlier popes, nor a change in Church teaching. I suspect Ender meant that JPII’s words were not to be interpreted as a contradiction, but rather a change in focus or emphasis.

I don’t want to put words in Ender’s mouth, but that’s how I read his response.

 

[Suudy]

You seem to believe that only a couple of American forum posters with no theological expertise… are the definitive world experts on the Church teaching regarding the death penalty. shakes head in bewilderment

To which posters are you referring? And how do you know they have “no theological expertise”?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ll let Ender respond to the rest of your post, but I don’t think that’s his point at all. I think his point is that we must consider the totality of Church teaching. JPII’s words weren’t meant as a repudiation of earlier popes, nor a change in Church teaching. I suspect Ender meant that JPII’s words were not to be interpreted as a contradiction, but rather a change in focus or emphasis.

I don’t want to put words in Ender’s mouth, but that’s how I read his response.

That’s what I assumed years ago when I first started responding to Enders posts… however time has shown that no, Ender actually does think that Pope StJPII is simply wrong and not speaking for the Church or for the Catholic world. If you read what he wrote which I then responded to… you can clearly see rejection of the words of Pope StJPII.

If the teachings of today do not contradict those of the past why do you object when I cite those of even the recent past? Pius XII’s comments were from the 1950s. I was addressing a very specific point regarding whether there was a church teaching that all innocent life was inviolable. To that end I cited two statements exactly addressing that question. How does your citation from EV clarify this? JPII said

“human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation”

The problem is that if it means life can never be taken under any circumstance it contradicts what the church has explicitly allowed throughout her entire existence. More to the point, it contradicts what JPII himself said when he allowed capital punishment in certain rare cases. Not only would that interpretation make capital punishment objectively evil but war and killing in self defense would be as well. Therefore that cannot be an accurate interpretation of this remark…leaving the comments of Pius XII and Pius XI as the more precise explanations.

 

[SWolf]

So may this personal blather be construed as your disagreeing that “death penalty” is a “pro-life” issue?

Why do you spend so much time and energy arguing about the way I write, rather than just answering and responding directly and honestly?

I’ve answered your question multiple times.

 

[SWolf]

A more correct argument could be made that the US cultural love of the capital punishment their style is so obviously and blindly contradicting all the evidence of natural and divine law that is manifest in the world today.

I already said this, but I’ll say it again.

I’m against the death penalty. If there was a law to abolish it I would support it. However, that does not make it a pro-life issue, but, as Ender pointed out, a question of Justice.

 

[LongingSoul]

To which posters are you referring? And how do you know they have “no theological expertise”?

I was pointing out that once swolf elevated Ender to expert theologian of the thread in #81, we have been treated to the argument ‘well you just don’t get it fools. Since we have the definitive Church teaching of Pope Ender’… to qualify all further points she/he makes for example in #160 #177 and #186.

Ender is an anonymous forum poster like the rest of us who can claim anything and say anything which amounts to nothing other than anonymous opinions.

Edit to include #194

 

[SWolf]

To which posters are you referring? And how do you know they have “no theological expertise”?

I think we should take LongingSoul on an American tour sometime.

We’d start in the morning with a pound of bacon for breakfast, then we would spend the morning shootin’. Bratwurst for lunch, no sissy vegetables, The afternoon will be spent watching REAL football, AMERICAN FOOTBALL! Then, big game huntin’. We’ll end with an evening watching Team America, followed by the daily televised execution.

'Merica!

 

[SWolf]

I was pointing out that once swolf elevated Ender to expert theologian of the thread in #81, we have been treated to the argument ‘well you just don’t get it fools. Since we have the definitive Church teaching of Pope Ender’… to qualify all further points she/he makes for example in #160 #177 and #186.

Ender is an anonymous forum poster like the rest of us who can claim anything and say anything which amounts to nothing other than anonymous opinions.

Edit to include #194

I’d be okay with Pope Ender, especially if we got invaded by giant bugs.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think we should take LongingSoul on an American tour sometime.

We’d start in the morning with a pound of bacon for breakfast, then we would spend the morning shootin’. Bratwurst for lunch, no sissy vegetables, The afternoon will be spent watching REAL football, AMERICAN FOOTBALL! Then, big game huntin’. We’ll end with an evening watching Team America, followed by the daily televised execution.

'Merica!

Unfortunately, not being blessed with American citizenship, I am denied the right to defend myself with a gun so I suspect that the morning shootin’ activities will be me dodging bullets by bouncing them off my ‘that’s not a knife. This is a knife’.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

SWolf;12724090:

It’s disingenuous to debate over a hundred posts with well-read, intelligent people and assert, at the end, one’s position as self-explanatory after being given considerable evidence to the contrary.

So may this personal blather be construed as your disagreeing that “death penalty” is a “pro-life” issue?

Why do you spend so much time and energy arguing about the way I write, rather than just answering and responding directly and honestly?

I’ve answered your question multiple times.

You answered neither question. I asked you if I am to construe your ad hominem attack on me as you dissent to my statement. I didn’t ask if you had made the statement before; I was asking if that was your convoluted and ego-centric way of disagreeing with me. So I guess I was right; that is your way of saying “I disagree with you.”

And you definitely didn’t answer my second question, as to why you seem to be so caught up in how I write, rather than just stating your case and letting it stand? I think it’s fascinating the length you go through to serve up insult after insult in place of actual dialog on the topic.

It’s really kind of amusing, and I’m curious to see how far you’re going to take it.

So, let me make sure I understand you. Since you’re not doing so well at answering questions, I’ll just pose two statements. If I’m right about both of them, all you have to do is say I’m right. You don’t have to go off on a diatribe:

Statement 1, regarding your content-free response to my post:
It’s disingenuous to debate over a hundred posts with well-read, intelligent people and assert, at the end, one’s position as self-explanatory after being given considerable evidence to the contrary.

The statement: This is code for “I disagree with you about that” in your own version of “charitable” posting language.

Statement 2, regarding the question I asked you that you dodged just like I expected you to because you seem to have a pattern of dodging every question if you can ignore or insult instead:
Why do you spend so much time and energy arguing about the way I write, rather than just answering and responding directly and honestly?

The statement: I think it’s because you love me, and you love getting my attention whether it’s positive or negative. That’s ok, though, because I love you too.

But then, I guess if you don’t want to call the issue of the “death penalty” a “pro-life” issue, then maybe we should call it a “pro-death” issue? Maybe that would be more apropos anyway.

Your move.

 

[SWolf]

Unfortunately, not being blessed with American citizenship, I am denied the right to defend myself with a gun so I suspect that the morning shootin’ activities will be me dodging bullets by bouncing them off my ‘that’s not a knife. This is a knife’.