US bishops approve new issue of voters' guide, 'Faithful Citizenship' [CC]

[Ender]

If it is unfair to blame the Republicans for not ending abortion, then why is it fair to blame the Democrats for not ending abortion? Or is it all about giving marks for effort instead of achievement?

It is unfair to blame someone for failing to do what cannot be done; it is not unfair to blame someone for preventing what can be done. I should have been more precise with my comment, because it is possible for Congress, and the states, to reverse a Supreme Court ruling. What is not possible is for that to be done by a divided Congress.

Actually, I am less put out by what the Democrats do - they are at least acting in accordance with their principles, such as they are - than I am by what I perceive the bishops have failed to do, which is to act in accordance with theirs.

Ender

 

[Sy_Noe]

If the statistics are accurate, most raped women who become pregnant do not have an abortion. If an unborn baby is a human being, then regardless of the circumstances of how the pregnancy came about, whether it was through the loving relationship between a husband and wife or an attack in the form of rape, that baby is still a human being and worthy of protection. There are probably thousands of people living their lives in the U.S. alone who were conceived through rape and maybe to a lesser degree, incest. They were not any less a human being in the womb because of the way in which they were conceived.

If the statistics are accurate and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then I believe that is so wonderful and such a blessing that they make that choice.

 

[vz71]

If the statistics are accurate and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then I believe that is so wonderful and such a blessing that they make that choice.

Why is it a blessing that a choice can be made to end a life or to preserve a life.

Shouldn’t that be solely God’s jurisdiction?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why is it a blessing that a choice can be made to end a life or to preserve a life.

Shouldn’t that be solely God’s jurisdiction?

May I ask kindly that you please not twist or add to what I said? What I actually said was that it is a blessing if most rape victims choose to preserve life if Abyssinia’s post in regard to stats is correct that they do, and I said I have absolutely no reason to believe that not to be the case.

If you’re referring to it solely being God’s jurisdiction as to when the lives of all human persons end, as I read for instance CCC 2267 it appears to me that the state has at least some jurisdiction. As someone who does not share your faith, I don’t believe life is more important or sacred to God in the womb than the lives of human persons are after birth, whether innocent or guilty. So I’m going to have to await for the Catholic Church to inform it’s members that they can no longer support the state playing God and killing people by lethal injection or any other means, under any circumstances, before I can determine that for Catholics, ending a life is solely God’s to do. There are still cases where Catholics condone the death penalty. And my experience is that many Catholic Republicans and Catholic conservatives I know of support the death penalty in far more than rare cases. I don’t know. Maybe this new Faithful Citizenship guide will address this particular human life issue further for the faithful. I’ve seen where Pope Francis has spoken in favor of abolishing the death penalty. But how that comes about without changing CCC, I haven’t a clue. Or even on how the Catholic Church goes about changing its catechism. But as long as the death penalty remains allowed in CCC, it seems to me that will always be a fallback for those who support it. And they will just say abolishing the death penalty is the Pope’s opinion but is not mandatory belief. And they can continue supporting the state having some jurisdiction as to when a human person’s life is ended. And they can say there is no guarantee that prison can protect others.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, it does, but I expect it will lay out a lot of such issues, and include climate change, global poverty, war, and other matters, so that in the end a voter will not be able to find any candidate who is acceptable, or for that matter, any candidate who can be definitely excluded.

…except Trump ??

 

[lynnvinc]

Ok.
I see the laundry list of people and ideals you support.
But there is something I noted missing that you may wish to include.
You do support the life of the unborn?
Don’t you?

We were all unborn at one time. The 2 most important people in my life were nearly aborted. I wouldn’t even be here if my father had been aborted as my grandfather wished. And that was many decades before the 1970s, during a time when abortions were illegal, and their 1st baby had been aborted in a doctor’s office – my grandmother not realizing what was happening or what “fix it” meant. She said she was a stupid little thing at first, but when my father came along she had smartened up and said, “I want this baby.”

However, when voting I really have to vote for the candidate I think will be the best on life issues in general – sort of like an army general having to make a dilemma decision, and finally deciding on the course of action that will be the least costly in terms of lives. It’s not a pleasant role to be in that position, since none of the candidates are squeaky clean on all life issues. And ALL human lives are important, not just the unborn of women having bad hair days who seek abortions. We have to use the knowledge and experience we have to make the best, most ethical voting decision.

But even then voting is never enough, and even laws and policies are never enough. We have to do much much more to promote life.

 

[Ender]

If you’re referring to it solely being God’s jurisdiction as to when the lives of all human persons end, as I read for instance CCC 2267 it appears to me that the state has at least some jurisdiction.

That is correct. The church has never said killing another human is always wrong. She has been very clear and consistent about when killing is justified.

As someone who does not share your faith, I don’t believe life is more important or sacred to God in the womb than the lives of human persons are after birth, whether innocent or guilty.

The church, however, make the distinction between guilty and innocent. It is “The deliberate murder of an innocent person” that is always wrong.

So I’m going to have to await for the Catholic Church to inform it’s members that they can no longer support the state playing God and killing people by lethal injection or any other means, under any circumstances, before I can determine that for Catholics, ending a life is solely God’s to do.

The church has never said “ending a life is solely God’s to do.” That has never been her position.

There are still cases where Catholics condone the death penalty. And my experience is that many Catholic Republicans and Catholic conservatives I know of support the death penalty in far more than rare cases. I don’t know. Maybe this new Faithful Citizenship guide will address this particular human life issue further for the faithful. I’ve seen where Pope Francis has spoken in favor of abolishing the death penalty. But how that comes about without changing CCC, I haven’t a clue. Or even on how the Catholic Church goes about changing its catechism.

It won’t happen.*Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

But as long as the death penalty remains allowed in CCC, it seems to me that will always be a fallback for those who support it. And they will just say abolishing the death penalty is the Pope’s opinion but is not mandatory belief. And they can continue supporting the state having some jurisdiction as to when a human person’s life is ended. And they can say there is no guarantee that prison can protect others.

This thread should not get derailed over this issue, but what you state above is correct.

Ender

 

[Sy_Noe]

That is correct. The church has never said killing another human is always wrong. She has been very clear and consistent about when killing is justified.
The church, however, make the distinction between guilty and innocent. It is “The deliberate murder of an innocent person” that is always wrong.
The church has never said “ending a life is solely God’s to do.” That has never been her position.
It won’t happen.*Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
This thread should not get derailed over this issue, but what you state above is correct.

Ender

I wasn’t trying to derail anything. I just assumed the death penalty would be mentioned in the new voters guide for faithful Catholics and it not solely reference abortion.

But I’m not expecting it to happen either. That is I’m not expecting the Catholic Church will change CCC informing the consciences of the faithful that they are no longer to support the death penalty today, despite the current Pope’s seemingly deep reservations about it. For one thing it would risk alienating the many Catholics who support the state playing God and taking into its own hands the determination as to when a human life ends and then executing the person. Also, as you stated the Catholic Church has always supported the death penalty. Even though today in very rare cases, if not practically non-existent the CCC says.

And thank you for clearing up that the Catholic Church never has said that “ending a life is solely God’s to do.” I was just confused by vz71 asking if shouldn’t the choice as to when to end a life, be God’s jurisdiction.

 

[vz71]

And thank you for clearing up that the Catholic Church never has said that “ending a life is solely God’s to do.” I was just confused by vz71 asking if shouldn’t the choice as to when to end a life, be God’s jurisdiction.

I noted it is solely God’s jurisdiction if an unborn lives or dies.

You drew an erroneous correlation to the death penalty.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I noted it is solely God’s jurisdiction if an unborn lives or dies.

You drew an erroneous correlation to the death penalty.

You noted: "Why is it a blessing that a choice can be made to end a life or to preserve a life.

“Shouldn’t that be solely God’s jurisdiction?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13463443&postcount=121

There is also a choice to be made as to whether we continue to allow the state, a judge or a jury to make the choice as to when to end or preserve a life. But I hadn’t realized that life only refers to the unborn. But no sweat. I get it now. I respect the Catholic position. I just don’t hold to the same belief and viewpoint. That’s one reason I don’t practice the Catholic faith. But I get it. No worries. All’s fine. Peace and blessings.

 

[1crazybusydad]

You noted: "Why is it a blessing that a choice can be made to end a life or to preserve a life.

“Shouldn’t that be solely God’s jurisdiction?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13463443&postcount=121

There is also a choice to be made as to whether we continue to allow the state, a judge or a jury to make the choice as to when to end or preserve a life. But I hadn’t realized that life only refers to the unborn. But no sweat. I get it now. I don’t hold to the same belief and viewpoint. That’s one reason I don’t practice the Catholic faith. But I get it. No worries. All’s fine. Peace and blessings.

No need to be snarky. I’m opposed to the death penalty, but there is a huge difference between death of a person found guilty of a major crime than the death of an innocent human being. This is pretty obvious to most people.

From a tradition and continuous Church teaching standpoint, the death penalty is allowed. The argument today is that it is rarely, if ever, necessary. While this is the position I hold, I’ve heard some decent counter-arguments.

1. The death penalty is not just about protecting society from the perpetrator. Rather, it is about justice, and it is the ultimate justice for the most heinous of crimes.
2. The worst of the murderous perpetrators have committed heinous crimes within the prisons they are housed. And there is still the possibility of escape.

Again, in any case, while we are all God’s children, the killing of an innocent life is never considered the same as the killing of someone in self-defense, war, or the transmission of justice.

 

[Sy_Noe]

No need to be snarky. I’m opposed to the death penalty, but there is a huge difference between death of a person found guilty of a major crime than the death of an innocent human being. This is pretty obvious to most people.

From a tradition and continuous Church teaching standpoint, the death penalty is allowed. The argument today is that it is rarely, if ever, necessary. While this is the position I hold, I’ve heard some decent counter-arguments.

1. The death penalty is not just about protecting society from the perpetrator. Rather, it is about justice, and it is the ultimate justice for the most heinous of crimes.
2. The worst of the murderous perpetrators have committed heinous crimes within the prisons they are housed. And there is still the possibility of escape.

Again, in any case, while we are all God’s children, the killing of an innocent life is never considered the same as the killing of someone in self-defense, war, or the transmission of justice.

Being snarky wasn’t even in my mind. I merely misunderstood the poster. I hadn’t realized by life, she/he was referring only to unborn life. But yes, Ender explained it. I merely said I don’t agree or hold the same belief and viewpoint, and that’s one of the reasons I don’t practice the Catholic faith. And was merely trying to get across that all’s fine… That I understand even though I don’t hold to the same belief and viewpoint. It’s my common sense to wish you peace as well.

 

[vz71]

Being snarky wasn’t even in my mind. I merely misunderstood the poster. I hadn’t realized by life, she/he was referring only to unborn life. But yes, Ender explained it. I merely said I don’t agree or hold the same belief and viewpoint, and that’s one of the reasons I don’t practice the Catholic faith. And was merely trying to get across that all’s fine… That I understand even though I don’t hold to the same belief and viewpoint. It’s my common sense to wish you peace as well.

Given the context of the quote, I fail to see how such a misinterpretation can be made.
Please explain.

 

[sarah_j]

The Church needs more bishops with the courage, clarity, and common sense
of the late Archbishop Phillip Hannan. Some of you will remember Hannon from
JFK’s funeral (he delivered the eulogy). Here is some of the statement which Hannon made to
advise the voters during a 1996 senate race between the liberal incumbent,
Mary Landrieu, and a pro-life candidate by the name of Jenkins.
Sadly, Landrieu was re-elected despite Archbishop Hannon’s guidance to Catholic voters.
She was eventually defeated in 2014. >

In a dramatic and unprecedented move, retired New Orleans Archbishop Philip Hannan told Louisiana Catholics Wednesday that “no Catholic should vote for . . . President Clinton or (Democratic Senate candidate) Mary Landrieu” because of their support of abortion rights.

“If a person actually believes in Catholic doctrine, I don’t see how they can avoid it being a sin” to vote for either candidate, he said.

…The announcement appeared to be the strongest, most explicit political statement from a ranking Catholic clergyman in memory.

…Catholic bishops have been harshly critical of Republican social policy, especially their efforts to overhaul the welfare system and restrict immigration.

**But support for Democrats on those issues is overshadowed, Hannan said, because abortion strikes at “the fundamental right, the right to life.”

“There’s no use worrying about welfare for a baby that’s dead.”**

more >nola.com/religion/index.ssf/1996/10/philip_m_hannan_says_voting_for_bill_clinton_or_mary_landrieu_is_a_sin_for_catholics.html

 

[Sy_Noe]

Given the context of the quote, I fail to see how such a misinterpretation can be made.
Please explain.

I had said what a blessing that a rape victim chose life. And again as I already explained, you asked, “Why is it a blessing that a choice can be made to end a life or to preserve a life? Shouldn’t that be solely God’s jurisdiction?” And I merely didn’t know that I had to limit my discussion about God’s jurisdiction to end a life or to preserve life solely to the context of rape victims and unborn life.

Our misunderstanding is really not something I am going to beleaguer any longer though. I am at peace and wish for peace to be with you as well. Blessings!