US Bishops Set to Tell Catholics Opposed to Teaching on Abortion or Homosexuality not

[WanderAimlessly]

What’s weird is beleiveing that one should actually subordinate their Faith to their politics. If requiring a Poltician who claims to be Catholic publicly adhere to the teachings of the Church costs either party votes so what?

Subordinating their Faith to their politics? More like selling out their faith. Abortion and the acts of Homosexualiy go against natural law. Rewarding both the legalization is an affront to God.

 

[MikeinSD]

"What I don’t understand in your post is how this is supposed to “effect the popularity of the Republican party”, get your party more votes and/or “split the Republican coalition.” Could you explain please?

Thanks and God bless,

Robert"

Hi Robert:
I posted because I think using the Sacraments as a political weapon would backfire.

The US Bishops should and will let the faithful know who can receive the Eucharist. But I think if the Bishops publically call for Senator Kennedy or Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to either repudiate the Democratic platform on abortion, homosexuality, and birth control or face excommunication, the resulting political firestorm would fracture the Republican coalition.

The showdown would raise the question of what matters more – a politician’s oath of office or her/his religion. President Kennedy put to rest the traditional Protestant fears of Catholic divided loyality in his presidential campaign. These fears are resting but far from gone. Public excommunications of Catholic Democrats would put the whole church/state Catholic or American issue right back on the table.

I grew up partially Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists still have the whole “Rome as the whore of Babylon” thinking. As do other Protestant faiths. Conservative Protestants on the whole agree with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality. But they deeply and sincerely differ with other Catholic teachings. Especially about the supremacy of the Catholic church.

Conservative Protestants would see Catholic politicians excommunicated for not supporting Catholic teachings on homosexuality, abortion, and birth control. What next? What other Catholic teachings must Catholic politicians support? Why not Catholic teachings about the primacy of the Catholic church over other faiths? Are Catholic politicians obligated to ignore the 1st Amendment and try to establish Catholicism as the state religion? Remember, faith trumps oaths of office. Talk about wedge issues.

So I ask you. If American law contradicts Catholic teachings, which do you support? The US Constitution states no state religion or religious tests for office. Catholic teachings say the Catholic church should be paramount over other religions. Do you consider the First Amendment binding on you? Especially if you were in a position alter or override it.

Have fun.
Mike

 

[estesbob]

"So I ask you. If American law contradicts Catholic teachings, which do you support? The US Constitution states no state religion or religious tests for office. Catholic teachings say the Catholic church should be paramount over other religions. Do you consider the First Amendment binding on you? Especially if you were in a position alter or override it.

Have fun.
Mike

Catholic teachings of course. Since Christ and the Church are one and the same you are asking whether we should follow Jesus Christ’s or man made laws first. The answer seems pretty simple from where I sit.

Fortuantely because of the First Amndment I can do so without fear of repurcussion-however the Legions of Martyrs that went before us show that that is not always the case.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Catholic teachings of course. Since Christ and the Church are one and the same you are asking whether we should follow Jesus Christ’s or man made laws first. The answer seems pretty simple from where I sit.

Fortuantely because of the First Amndment I can do so without fear of repurcussion-however the Legions of Martyrs that went before us show that that is not always the case.

Agreed.

Besides. The “religious test” does not apply to us voters. We can choose based on our religious belief (and in the case of Catholics, religious Truth). The “religious test” means a person cannot be excluded from running for office, or being appointed to a position as in the Judiciary.

 

[rlg94086]

Conservative Protestants would see Catholic politicians excommunicated for not supporting Catholic teachings on homosexuality, abortion, and birth control. What next? What other Catholic teachings must Catholic politicians support? Why not Catholic teachings about the primacy of the Catholic church over other faiths? Are Catholic politicians obligated to ignore the 1st Amendment and try to establish Catholicism as the state religion? Remember, faith trumps oaths of office. Talk about wedge issues.

Actually, I don’t think conservative non-Catholics would abandon the Republican party over this. They would probably applaud the Vatican, even while adding “even though it is the whore of Babylon.”

MikeinSD:

So I ask you. If American law contradicts Catholic teachings, which do you support? The US Constitution states no state religion or religious tests for office. Catholic teachings say the Catholic church should be paramount over other religions. Do you consider the First Amendment binding on you? Especially if you were in a position alter or override it.

Have fun.
Mike

Having fun. Of course the First Amendment is binding.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where does anything in the Catholic Church run contrary to that? I don’t know what you are referring to when you say “Catholic teachings say the Catholic church should be paramount over other religions.” Certainly, She is the One, Holy and Apostolic Church, but She recognizes other churches in imperfect union…not subjagation.

From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

365. Why does everyone have a right to exercise freedom?
The right to the exercise of freedom belongs to everyone because it is inseparable from his or ther dignity as a human person. Therefore this right muat always be respected, *especially in moral and religious matters, *and it must be recongnized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and a just public order.

I can’t think of anything in the Constitution contrary to Catholic teaching. Now, if a law were passed requiring people to wear a birth control patch, then that law would not be binding on Catholics.

406. When is authority exercised in a legitimate way?
Authority is exercised legitimately when it acts for the common good and employs morally licit means to attain it. Therefore, political regimes must be determined by the free decision of their citizens. They should respect the principle of the “rule of law” in which the law, and not the arbitrary will of some, is sovereign. *Unjust laws and measures contrary to the moral order are not binding in conscience. *

410. How does one participate in bringing about the common good?
All men and women according to the place and role that they occupy participate in promoting the common good by respecting just laws and taking charge of the areas for which they have personal responsibility such as the care of their own family and the commitment to their work. Citizens also should take an active part in public life as far as possible. (italics mine)

In the case of a legislator, “their work” is passing laws for our nation. The way I see it, it is the responsibility of legislators to bring their Catholic views with them to Congress and propose legislation in line with that teaching. I would expect an athiest, a muslim or an evangelical Christian to do the same. All participants vote…they send approved legislation to the White House…it gets signed into law. If it does not run contrary to the Constitution, then the Supreme Court upholds it. Voila!

Where abortion laws got mucked up were at the Supreme Court level. The only fix is to clarify/strengthen the Constitution or get better judges that don’t interpret wrongly.

 

[Jeanette_L]

For the most part, these children weren’t slaughtered. Their mothers simply refused to extend them the hospitality of a stay in their wombs. You may be surprised by this, but I’m actually against 7, 8, or 9th month abortions in just about all cases. That’s because a C-Section at that point in time should be able to be performed and the baby delivered alive. The numbers of abortions performed at this stage is currently low and rightly so! As technology improves, you can tuck 6th month in there too as being a safe place for a C-Section. 4 and 5 month points are harder. The child can’t survive without her mother’s hospitality. I can see benefit on putting reasonable restrictions on these abortions for the simple reason being that abortions at this stage are less safe for the woman and that it isn’t that far to the safe third trimester where a C-Section can be obtained. 1 2 and 3 I see no compelling reason for the government to rule over the property of the young woman. Just as a woman can choose to extend the hospitality of her womb to a child, she can refuse.

Do I want abortions? No, I would gladly a day come when there are none. I have great hope that the morning after pill will reduce their occurence greatly. I hope the artificial womb research going on bears fruit and that abortion clinics can be transformed into foetus adoption centers where women can go and anonymously drop off their feotus.

WOW.

Sounds like you’re really enjoying that slippery slope you’ve put yourself on. Have you actually read what you wrote here? How far do you intend to go to justify your “rationality”?

I think a lot of people here will be praying for you, it’s really frightening how dark Enlightenment has become.

 

[Thekla]

We will soon be inundated with posts from “Catholics:” telling that although this may be binding on pro-abortion Catholic Politicians it most certainly does not apply for those who vote for them.!

I agree with you. That’s how I read the article as well. When I first read the headline, I thought that they were going to tell Catholics how to vote. This seems like what we’ve heard before.

 

[a_cermak]

WOW.

Sounds like you’re really enjoying that slippery slope you’ve put yourself on. Have you actually read what you wrote here? How far do you intend to go to justify your “rationality”?

I think a lot of people here will be praying for you, it’s really frightening how dark Enlightenment has become.

And yet, I’m not outside the mainstream in my area. When polled, most people support strong restrictions on 2nd trimester, an almost entire ban on 3rd trimester (leaving exceptions for health/life of mother when a C-Section cannot be done–almost never happens but no one wants to deal with the unfortunate person having a court case if it does happen) and no restrictions in 1rst trimester. Granted the trimester business is not perfect, especially as medical science makes C-Sections earlier possible, but it’s an easy way to divide 9 months.

Like I said, I’m not pulling for more abortions. I’m hoping better/more widely accessible contraception, the morning after pill (which only works as an implantation preventer in a fraction of the cases where it’s deployed–more often, current research shows, it works by delaying ovulation or hindering sperm progress), and more advanced technology overall (widely available, cheap artificial wombs) can help reduce the abortion rate and/or effect of abortions.

Another approach might be attempting to change society so that untimely pregnancies don’t ruin lives and destroy dreams.

 

[Jeffrey]

How can a beautiful new baby ruin a life or destroy dreams?

Abortion is murder… it is wrong… period. In all trimesters.

And yet, I’m not outside the mainstream in my area. When polled, most people support strong restrictions on 2nd trimester, an almost entire ban on 3rd trimester (leaving exceptions for health/life of mother when a C-Section cannot be done–almost never happens but no one wants to deal with the unfortunate person having a court case if it does happen) and no restrictions in 1rst trimester. Granted the trimester business is not perfect, especially as medical science makes C-Sections earlier possible, but it’s an easy way to divide 9 months.

Like I said, I’m not pulling for more abortions. I’m hoping better/more widely accessible contraception, the morning after pill (which only works as an implantation preventer in a fraction of the cases where it’s deployed–more often, current research shows, it works by delaying ovulation or hindering sperm progress), and more advanced technology overall (widely available, cheap artificial wombs) can help reduce the abortion rate and/or effect of abortions.

Another approach might be attempting to change society so that untimely pregnancies don’t ruin lives and destroy dreams.

 

[Jeanette_L]

And yet, I’m not outside the mainstream in my area.

But here is my point.

As Christians, we are called to be outside the mainstream!

To **go against the stream **when needed.

To be in the world but not of the world.

All of your arguments are from the perspective of the current culture, of the world, not from the perspective of eternal truths. We are supposed to elevate humanity to think outside of mere convenience, to what is eternally true, that *all human life *is to be treated with equal dignity. This is the Christian way. I’m not seeing your arguments as being from the Christian perspective at all.

 

[Richardols]

If it were simply my opinion I would agree with you, but it is not opinion that contraceptive intercourse is intrinsically wrong. It is a matter of natural moral law. It is a moral truth.

By the lights of our faith, not by the understanding of most of those of other faiths, however. Most non-Catholics hold that birth control, if not employing abortifacients, is a matter of good stewardship.

 

[fix]

By the lights of our faith, not by the understanding of most of those of other faiths, however. Most non-Catholics hold that birth control, if not employing abortifacients, is a matter of good stewardship.

It can be reasoned from the natural moral law. The same way abortion is wrong. Whatever position others hold really does not make their position correct no matter how it is justified.

 

[estesbob]

And yet, I’m not outside the mainstream in my area. When polled, most people support strong restrictions on 2nd trimester, an almost entire ban on 3rd trimester (leaving exceptions for health/life of mother when a C-Section cannot be done–almost never happens but no one wants to deal with the unfortunate person having a court case if it does happen) and no restrictions in 1rst trimester. Granted the trimester business is not perfect, especially as medical science makes C-Sections earlier possible, but it’s an easy way to divide 9 months.

Morality is now based on a poll? Now that is an interesting concept. Fortunately for those of us who don’t think that human life is disposable at the whim of current public opinion we have the unchanging teachings of our church to follow.

Like I said, I’m not pulling for more abortions. I’m hoping better/more widely accessible contraception, the morning after pill (which only works as an implantation preventer in a fraction of the cases where it’s deployed–more often, current research shows, it works by delaying ovulation or hindering sperm progress), and more advanced technology overall (widely available, cheap artificial wombs) can help reduce the abortion rate and/or effect of abortions.

You support the killing of our children and rationalize it by saying you don’t want more killed? Does anyone else see the disconnect here?

So the morning after pill only kills a “few” children and in your mind that makes it acceptable?

Another approach might be attempting to change society so that untimely pregnancies don’t ruin lives and destroy dreams.

Do you have children??? Children destroy dreams? Children ruin lives? If that is true why stop the killing at birth? why not let parents have until their child’s 18th birthday to decide if they should be allowed to live. after all circumstances change-what is wanted today could be a life ruiner of dream destroyer tomorrow-that is for those who believe that children who inconvenience us should be killed.

 

[Richardols]

It can be reasoned from the natural moral law. The same way abortion is wrong. Whatever position others hold really does not make their position correct no matter how it is justified.

Contraception, of the non-abortifacient kind, and abortion are two different things.

BTW, if it were so clear from natural moral law, I doubt that there’d be so much acceptance of contraception. Non-Catholic theologians aren’t stupid, and they can reason as well as ours.

 

[fix]

Contraception, of the non-abortifacient kind, and abortion are two different things.

BTW, if it were so clear from natural moral law, I doubt that there’d be so much acceptance of contraception. Non-Catholic theologians aren’t stupid, and they can reason as well as ours.

Well, the natural law cannot be grasped clearly and quickly by all. All types of things help obscure it to us. It is true faithful Catholics have an advantage as they accept the magesterium.

As for abortion their are plenty of folks who claim it does not violate the natural law, or if it does there is an exception.

I am not saying the gravity between abortion and contraceptions is exactly the same, although both are evil, I am saying that while many may not grasp the gravity and consequences of approving of contraceptive intercourse that in no ways means it ought to be condoned.

 

[Richardols]

I am saying that while many may not grasp the gravity and consequences of approving of contraceptive intercourse that in no ways means it ought to be condoned.

Keep in mind that “natural family planning” is also contraceptive in nature and in practice.

 

[estesbob]

Keep in mind that “natural family planning” is also contraceptive in nature and in practice.

The key to understanding the HUGE difference is the word “NATURAL”

 

[estesbob]

Contraception, of the non-abortifacient kind, and abortion are two different things.

BTW, if it were so clear from natural moral law, I doubt that there’d be so much acceptance of contraception. Non-Catholic theologians aren’t stupid, and they can reason as well as ours.

It was crystal clear to all Christian theologians for 1933 years. It was only in 1933 that ANY Christian faith allowed contraception. So what makes the Non-Catholic theologians of today so much smarter than all who went before them?

 

[fix]

Keep in mind that “natural family planning” is also contraceptive in nature and in practice.

The problem is we all throw around the term contraceptive without defining it correctly. NFP, by definition, is not contraceptive. The act with NFP is unaltered.

The act of contraception fundamentally alters the nature of the act.

 

[Richardols]

The problem is we all throw around the term contraceptive without defining it correctly. NFP, by definition, is not contraceptive. The act with NFP is unaltered.

The act of contraception fundamentally alters the nature of the act.

To me, this sounds a lot like splitting hairs. (otherwise, agree that abortifacient contraception is always wrong)