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

[SWolf]

Those who have suggested that the expansion of the “pro-life” label to various other issues will dilute the focus on abortion are clearly right. The fact that capital punishment has been the topic for the last few pages of this discussion simply demonstrates the validity of that concern. To put some perspective on this, assume abortions are carried out 365 days a year, for 12 hours a day. At that same rate it would take about 10 minutes to complete a years worth of executions. When you throw the “pro-life” label over such diverse topics as immigration, health care, and the budget you begin to wonder if there is any topic at all that couldn’t in some sense be considered “pro-life”. And that is pretty much the objective of the exercise.

There are other threads about capital punishment where this debate ought to continue, but this comment needs to be addressed. Believing that all human life is sacred does not require one to oppose capital punishment. If we can believe God, the sacredness of life is the reason he gave for employing it. You would have us believe that because the life of the murderer is sacred, his life is protected,** but God explained that because the life of the victim was sacred the life of the murderer is forfeit. Why should we assume he didn’t actually mean what he said?**INDENT]Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gn 9:6)
[/INDENT]Man’s life may be sacred, but it is not inviolate.

Ender

Wow.

I’m always astounded by the knowledge of some people here. Thanks for the above.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

1,2 and 3, 4 is out, and 5 then isn’t of question. Seriously is there someone we “have” to kill for some reason?

Then we will have to add 6.

How is it allowed to kill to protect yourself? As humanly as possible, but its spiritually allowed?

That’s a good question. My reading of the CCC is that you have a right to value your own life against an unjust aggressor. So therefore if someone comes after me and I try to protect myself and end up killing the aggressor, then that’s OK as long as my intent was to protect myself – even if by dealing a deadly blow – rather than to actually wish the other person were dead. In fact, even if I don’t mean to kill but do by accident. So like maybe if I think I’m going to knock someone out but instead turns out I kill them, that can still be considered self-defense.

It gets more complicated when it gets into government officials, because they have not only a right but obligation to protect others’ lives. So the CCC says they may need to use the death penalty, if they have no other way to remove a potentially continuing threat from those whose lives they are protecting.

I already told you I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Our Church does not.

Agree. I’m not sure where all we’ve been now, but my points are mainly that “all human life is sacred” is not in itself a reason to prefer death penalty over abortion being legal. That’s my personal opinion so if a theologian says I’m wrong then maybe I’m wrong.

Also I had a rant about the fact that pro-life politicians just because they wear the right costume, doesn’t mean they will actually do anything to save babies. They may make plenty of noise and press releases, but do they save babies?

Another issue I have is about the relationship between church and state in general, but other than this mention I won’t get into that in this thread.

You would have us believe that because the life of the murderer is sacred, his life is protected, but God explained that because the life of the victim was sacred the life of the murderer is forfeit. Why should we assume he didn’t actually mean what he said?Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gn 9:6)
Man’s life may be sacred, but it is not inviolate.

Ender

The quote from Genesis, the book that the Church says may be interpreted figuratively, may say that.

And realistically, if we’re going by Old Testament, then Jesus should not have prevented them from stoning the Prostitute.

For that matter, He might as well not have bothered becoming incarnate at all.

MS

 

[Ender]

The quote from Genesis, the book that the Church says may be interpreted figuratively, may say that.

I didn’t provide that citation just because I thought it applicable; I used it because that’s what the church uses.CCC 2260 *The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence: *

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *

*The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.*Nor is that a passage the church interprets only figuratively. “Figuratively” the passage would seem to have no meaning at all.

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I didn’t provide that citation just because I thought it applicable; I used it because that’s what the church uses.CCC 2260 *The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence: *

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *

*The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.*Nor is that a passage the church interprets only figuratively. “Figuratively” the passage would seem to have no meaning at all.

Ender

So men will kill men. That doesn’t say anything about whether they should.

 

[LongingSoul]

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life. "And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant parents and grandparents to better integrate into and prosper in American society. But it’s not the same anymore. Nonetheless, there are among Democrats some pro-lifers, but they are, unfortunately, rare. *

*Cardinal Burke

In Aus. a priest talking political parties rather than moral issues would be censured. That surely doesn’t seem appropriate behaviour for a Cardinal.

 

[LongingSoul]

It is well known that many American Catholics have placed their politics before their faith in spite of the clear teachings of the Church. many rationalize it using the same excuses you have used in this thread. For them pro-life politicians are never pure enough, pro-abortion politicians need merely have to have a(D) after their name. And the slaughter continues .

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]- Card. Ratzinger

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I might add I’m a lifelong conservative voter who is Catholic style anti abortion.

 

[Ender]

So men will kill men. That doesn’t say anything about whether they should.

It is not a question of “men killing men”; it is a question of justice. Nor did God merely suggest that the death penalty could be used, it’s a good bit stronger than that.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)
The church’s teachings on punishment only make sense if it is understood that justice is the primary objective of all penalties. This is why the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime (absent special circumstances). The individual is forbidden to punish but the state is obligated to.

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Let me put it this way.

Regardless of all the fancy talk anybody wants to put up, that doesn’t change the fact that the death penalty IS a “right to life” issue just as much as abortion, if not more. Since after all, in the case of the death penalty, they are at least classified “citizens.” As I recall, part of the problem with Roe v. Wade is that babies aren’t classified as “citizens” until they have been born.

You should go for a Constitutional amendment that says that the government should not deprive any citizen of right to life, without regard to “due course of law” like we have now. If you intend to be an activist for “pro-life” then you must wish the government to completely get out of the business of killing someone that isn’t directly in self-defense or to stop an immediate threat to another citizen. So a cop shooting on the street, that might happen. But to kill a person who you have locked in a cage? Not necessary deprivation of life.

Whether the state should be able to deprive the life from a person when that person presents no significant threat – and in fact costs much more societal resource to kill than to feed – is JUST as big of an issue as whether private individuals may deprive the life of a baby.

So whether Pope Francis is expanding the perceived issue or not, the issue is huge. If all you want to do is get rid of abortions and have no intention of expanding the “pro-life” concept beyond that political issue, then quit calling yourself “pro-life” and just call yourself “anti-abort” because I have just demonstrated how being “anti-abortion” does not imply “pro-life.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let me put it this way.

Regardless of all the fancy talk anybody wants to put up, that doesn’t change the fact that the death penalty IS a “right to life” issue just as much as abortion, if not more. Since after all, in the case of the death penalty, they are at least classified “citizens.” As I recall, part of the problem with Roe v. Wade is that babies aren’t classified as “citizens” until they have been born.

You should go for a Constitutional amendment that says that the government should not deprive any citizen of right to life, without regard to “due course of law” like we have now. If you intend to be an activist for “pro-life” then you must wish the government to completely get out of the business of killing someone that isn’t directly in self-defense or to stop an immediate threat to another citizen. So a cop shooting on the street, that might happen. But to kill a person who you have locked in a cage? Not necessary deprivation of life.

Whether the state should be able to deprive the life from a person when that person presents no significant threat – and in fact costs much more societal resource to kill than to feed – is JUST as big of an issue as whether private individuals may deprive the life of a baby.

So whether Pope Francis is expanding the perceived issue or not, the issue is huge. If all you want to do is get rid of abortions and have no intention of expanding the “pro-life” concept beyond that political issue, then quit calling yourself “pro-life” and just call yourself “anti-abort” because I have just demonstrated how being “anti-abortion” does not imply “pro-life.”

No, this doesn’t work. If you see someone about to slit a child’s throat and you have a gun, are you truly saying you wouldn’t shoot the perpetrator to save the child? Do you think it’s immoral to do it?

The Church teaches that the death penalty can be employed for various reasons, protection of others being one of them. Do you agree with that or not?

 

[estesbob]

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]- Card. Ratzinger

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I might add I’m a lifelong conservative voter who is Catholic style anti abortion.

And what proportionate reasonitigates a candidates support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand?

 

[Darryl1958]

So men will kill men. That doesn’t say anything about whether they should.

We sometimes should.

Precisely because a human life IS sacred. The innocent need our protection in order that they may live life in fullness.

Those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind. Not standing up against the evil that man does against his fellow man does not promote the value of a human life, but denigrates it.

Justice does not just stand up for the value of a human life, but it is based on the dignity of even the condemned man, who is held to be accountable for his own evil. To not hold someone accountable lowers him to the level of the animal, which likewise is deemed to be morally unaccountable.

To be truly pro-life, we must honor a belief in justice, and hold ourselves and others accountable for the evil we do.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

No, this doesn’t work. If you see someone about to slit a child’s throat and you have a gun, are you truly saying you wouldn’t shoot the perpetrator to save the child? Do you think it’s immoral to do it?

Are you kidding me? I’d shoot the guy in a heartbeat.

I’m talking about a guy they’ve had in a cage for years, not one who is about to commit a crime. This is a good example, but not relevant to the “death penalty” question.

The Church teaches that the death penalty can be employed for various reasons, protection of others being one of them. Do you agree with that or not?

I agree with them.

I also agree with them that it should not be employed if there is any other means to keep the person from causing further damage. And I also agree that with today’s technology that is almost never the case, if ever. Do you agree with the Church on that or not?

 

[livingwordunity]

I knew that’s where this was going. In order to rationalize supporting the party of death it is first necessary to denigrate those who are pro-life has not being " pure" enough. Next the definition of pro-life is expanded to such an extent that the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year is delegated to just another “issue .”

I think it’s about time to post a the list again.

EXCUSES*FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about*abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with*abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything aboutabortionuntil we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t endabortionuntil we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

Good posts. It sheds light on the Left’s attack on the Pro-Life cause.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Most of you are doing a great job of dodging my repeated question that makes all the difference in your logical world. Maybe I can make it easier for you to comprehend:

**Is there even a single poster who identifies as “pro-lifer” on this thread, and who thinks “all human life is sacred” but still supports the death penalty? **

If you are here, show yourselves. Either way, if you support the death penalty, then I trust you will never support the slogan “all human life is sacred.” Either that or you are a hypocrite or liar if you understand me, and an ignorant fool if you don’t despite my efforts to make it clear and simple. In “my” logical opinion, that is.

Unless and until you wake up and reconcile it in your own head and start speaking a coherent message. Who needs pro-aborts to undermine the “pro-life” cause when we can undermine it all by ourselves by repeatedly asserting that, well, really only “certain humans” have the “right to life.” Isn’t that exactly what we’re claiming our opposition is doing? :whacky:

 

[Darryl1958]

Most of you are doing a great job of dodging my repeated question that makes all the difference in your logical world. Maybe I can make it easier for you to comprehend:

**Is there even a single “pro-lifer” on this thread, who thinks “all human life is sacred” but still supports the death penalty? **

If you are here, show yourselves. Otherwise, if you support the death penalty, then I trust you will never support the slogan “all human life is sacred.” Either that or you are a hypocrite or liar if you understand me, and an ignorant fool if you don’t despite my efforts to make it clear and simple. In “my” logical opinion, that is.

Unless and until you wake up and reconcile it in your own head and start speaking a coherent message. Who needs pro-aborts to undermine the “pro-life” cause when we can undermine it all by ourselves only determine that only “certain humans” have the right to life. Isn’t that exactly what we’re claiming our opposition is doing? :whacky:

Since you have already said that you would kill someone in a heartbeat under the right circumstances, your argument no longer holds. Your criticism of hypocrite, liar or ignorant fool applies to you as well, according to your own logic.

Even if a human life is sacred, death indeed is sometimes the answer. There are times when even you would impose the death sentence on somebody- in a heart beat.

 

[estesbob]

Most of you are doing a great job of dodging my repeated question that makes all the difference in your logical world. Maybe I can make it easier for you to comprehend:

**Is there even a single “pro-lifer” on this thread, who thinks “all human life is sacred” but still supports the death penalty? **

If you are here, show yourselves. Either way, if you support the death penalty, then I trust you will never support the slogan “all human life is sacred.” Either that or you are a hypocrite or liar if you understand me, and an ignorant fool if you don’t despite my efforts to make it clear and simple. In “my” logical opinion, that is.

Unless and until you wake up and reconcile it in your own head and start speaking a coherent message. Who needs pro-aborts to undermine the “pro-life” cause when we can undermine it all by ourselves by repeatedly asserting that, well, really only “certain humans” have the “right to life.” Isn’t that exactly what we’re claiming our opposition is doing? :whacky:

You don’t. You said you would kill to protect your family. I guess that means you are not pro-life.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Since you have already said that you would kill someone in a heartbeat under the right circumstances, your argument no longer holds. Your criticism of hypocrite, liar or ignorant fool applies to you as well, according to your own logic.

Even if a human life is sacred, death indeed is sometimes the answer. There are times when even you would impose the death sentence on somebody- in a heart beat.

I do not disagree with your reasoning, because you make sense. I’m not the one saying “all human life is sacred.” At least if that means I can never “remove” the life from a human without sinning.

I’m calling out people who abuse that slogan by applying it to abortion but not death penalty.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I do not disagree with your reasoning, because you make sense. I’m not the one saying “all human life is sacred.” At least if that means I can never “remove” the life from a human without sinning.

I’m calling out people who abuse that slogan by applying it to abortion but not death penalty.

And that is important partly because this thread is about expanding the concept of “pro-life” beyond the topic of abortion, and I claim that it absolutely does, and the mantra “all human life is sacred” is one of the favorites of the current “anti-abortion” activists; my diocesan newspaper came with a poster with that slogan pictured over a rose, for me to hang on the front door. I fed it to the shredder because I don’t believe that the mainstream “pro-life” political activists, honestly believe their own mantra. And that is part of why we’re in such a mess; we can’t even be honest with ourselves so how can we defend against legal and logical attacks from the pro-aborts?

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Actually I think it would be brilliant, for the anti-death penalty crowd to co-opt the term “all human life is sacred” for their cause.

Personally, I am not completely against the death penalty in concept, although in its current form it does more harm than good afa I’m concerned and we would be better off without it at all – if for no other reason than the clearly documented cases of lying prosecutors (remember these are always high profile cases so there is a lot of political capitol riding on obtaining a victory) and wrongful convictions. Not to mention that it really is more about the quality of the lawyers in many cases than anything else – Johnny Cochran for example could probably have gotten most of them off.

The government has a vested interest in “looking tough” when applying the death penalty, to the point where it’s more interested in preserving it as an institution rather than examining whether it still serves a useful need in today’s world. And I’m talking only about the US here because this is where I live and I’m too US-centric to make such claims for other cultures.

 

[estesbob]

And that is important partly because this thread is about expanding the concept of “pro-life” beyond the topic of abortion, and I claim that it absolutely does, and the mantra “all human life is sacred” is one of the favorites of the current “anti-abortion” activists; my diocesan newspaper came with a poster with that slogan pictured over a rose, for me to hang on the front door. I fed it to the shredder because I don’t believe that the mainstream “pro-life” political activists, honestly believe their own mantra. And that is part of why we’re in such a mess; we can’t even be honest with ourselves so how can we defend against legal and logical attacks from the pro-aborts?

Your reference to those of us involved in the pro-life ministry as “anti-abortion activists” speaks volumes. This is nothing more than a political issue to you. I can assure you in my years in counseling women at a CPC that the “death penalty” never came up-not once. You denigrate those who are dedicated to this ministry because they are not pure enough for you. At least that is what you say. Your comments and the vocabulary you use in your posts is not indicative of any pro-life adherent I know of You use the same arguments and vocabulary as Democrat Catholics who come here and assure us that those of us in the ministry are at the least dupes and the most hypocrites(or both).

We are not a “mess” We who are involved in the ministry have made great strides in liming this evil and educating the public as to how evil abortion is. Meanwhile other so called “supporters” stand on the sidelines denigrating our efforts while hiding behind semantics and questioning our morals.