Where is the Catholic political anti-abortion mandate?

[tskrobacz]

More magisterial support for anti-abortion mandate from Evangelium Vitae:

Ain’t no way around it. If you think you can punt on the issue of abortion, you are in the wrong church.

I would say you are in the right church in need of Gods healing grace like the rest of us.

 

[Scottgun]

I would say you are in the right church in need of Gods healing grace like the rest of us.

Agreed. Let’s not de-rail from the main topic if you would please. Restated: There IS an unambiguous Catholic mandate to oppose abortion.

 

[CaliLobo]

…The question is one that favors a lukewarm (at best) “Christianity” - which Jesus stated he is disgusted with " … the lukewarm I shall spit from my mouth."

Wouldn’t that be a better practical solution, and in turn, reduce most abortions? No. Because it makes one assent to some murders that are unjust.The murders are not theoretical – but real per results. This would be “thinking as men think …not as God thinks” and so NOT what Catholics should ever DO! The SEEMING benefit(s) notwithstanding.

Why does it have to oppose all abortion at all costs, alienating all of society?

Would that it did. There are some VERY public lukewarm to COLD Catholics (sometimes in the clergy, though usually that would bring sanctions against them) that would compromise away everything that opposes the selfish and secular for the sake of convenience and a false peace. Abortion is an abomination. It is not good at all. It should NEVER be done deliberately. And a Holy Church, far from alienating society - must aim to save and help “society” not join it in its most destructive, disgusting, unjust and God-contradicting notions.

Scottgun:

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

Ain’t no way around it. If you think you can punt on the issue of abortion, you are in the wrong church.

I don’t think it’s about being lukewarm. Rather, I think it’s the only possible, viable choice. Most people don’t believe as Catholics do; that is not a surprise.

If it is true that God loved us enough to give us free will, then it logically flows that rights come from God. Then it logically flows that who are we to restrict the rights of others?

As long as abortion (and gay marriage) are considered civil rights, there is NO possibility of restricting them politically or legally. The only way to change human behavior is evangelization.

We will never reverse Roe v Wade, and the Supreme Court will not reverse the Circuit Courts’ strikedown of gay marriage bans. The case law is here to stay.

As long as homosexuality is considered normal and not a disease, it is foolish to insist that marriage rights cannot be extended to gay couples.

Meeting in the middle is the only possible, viable choice politically.

Let me add that the governor of Kansas is about to lose the upcoming election because of his lack of pragmatism. The governor is a strong opponent of abortion and gay marriage rights. But because his attempts to reduce the size of government have alienated too many people, he is gonna lose–in a conservative state. A state with a diocese that offers free Catholic education, and a state in which the archbishop had the guts to excommunicate the former governor. This is a state in which Catholics have much hope politically, but now what?

Although the challenger has promised not to change Kansas abortion laws, how could Catholics trust that? Also, he is skirting the issue with regards to gay marriage:

cjonline.com/news/elections-2014/vg/paul-davis
3. How should Kansas change laws related to abortion?

Kansas’ abortion laws are among the strictest in the nation - I will not change that as governor. I do feel that every woman has the right to make her own personal medical decisions in consultation with her family and her doctor - free from government intrusion.

1. Explain your views on the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in light of federal court action elsewhere?

I strongly believe that it is in Kansas’ best interest to project a welcoming public image, especially if we want to recruit new businesses and more people to our state. But I am unwilling to speculate on what the United States Supreme Court may or may not do. Kansans want their Governor to bring people together to solve the problems. They want strong public schools, lower property taxes, and good paying jobs. These values are shared by all Kansans, and this will be my top focus.

This is just one small example of how lack of pragmatism ends up hurting Catholics in the end. In politics, moral pragmatism is the only possible way.

(Why do I keep posting about these things though I’m not Catholic? Because as I said before, years of Protestantism have come to a close for me. I continue to inch toward being Catholic myself, but the Vatican’s square stance on social issues is one thing holding me back.)

Rau:

You’re not engaging with the essential moral realities, you’re preference is to write a blog, focussing on politics, restating your view, omitting logical reasoning. Your position is dead in the water Cali, and you’re drowning alongside it. I’ll keep an eye on this thread to see if you step up to the plate and try to deal with the key points your interlocutors have made.

I’ve made a great effort to deal with the key points. Would you be willing to rejoin the discussion?

 

[Rau]

…As long as abortion (and gay marriage) are considered civil rights, there is NO possibility of restricting them politically or legally. The only way to change human behavior is evangelization.

That a majority may consider them civil rights is why there is a conflict. Are you saying that the day 51% of the population decided these things were good, then the remaining 49% were obligated to cease objection? To know hold another view? How absurd.

As long as homosexuality is considered normal and not a disease, it is foolish to insist that marriage rights cannot be extended to gay couples.

Normal in what sense?? Homosexuality would seem to be a form of affliction, given a homosexual lacks the impetus to seek a mate with whom procreation is possible. Homosexuality happens. But in what sense is it normal? But that is secondary. If two (or more) arbitrary persons desire a set of rights around mutual care and asset sharing and the like, fine. But I choose to vote against the State endorsing and acclaiming sexual relationships between members of the same sex.

Meeting in the middle is the only possible, viable choice politically.

Nonsense. Why does anyone have to give up their view about how they would like the society to function. We are all free to vote according to our conscience.

…I do feel that every woman has the right to make her own personal medical decisions in consultation with her family and her doctor - free from government intrusion.

Abortion is not a medical matter - that’s a euphemism. Aborting a baby is the same as killing an infant. Are you comfortable with the State being OK with the latter “right” too Cali? If not, why not?

Why do I keep posting about these things though I’m not Catholic? Because as I said before, years of Protestantism have come to a close for me. I continue to inch toward being Catholic myself, but the Vatican’s square stance on social issues is one thing holding me back.

Where did Protestantism fall short in your view?

I regret to inform you that the position of the Catholic church on abortion and “gay marriage” is not going to change. These things will never be considered good. Do you seriously think this will change Cali?

 

[CaliLobo]

More magisterial support for anti-abortion mandate from Evangelium Vitae:

Ain’t no way around it. If you think you can punt on the issue of abortion, you are in the wrong church.

You didn’t cite the rest of paragraph 73. Here it is:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter.** In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. **

Am I vindicated? Could it be??

Rau:

Abortion is not a medical matter - that’s a euphemism. Aborting a baby is the same as killing an infant. Are you comfortable with the State being OK with the latter “right” too Cali? If not, why not?

It is definitely a medical matter because pregnancy is a health risk requiring a visit to the doctor, and by logic the decision to terminate pregnancy falls within that umbrella. No I am not comfortable with killing of infants because born infants have constitutional rights. I know you find that explanation trite but that’s more than sufficient for me.

Rau:

Where did Protestantism fall short in your view?

I regret to inform you that the position of the Catholic church on abortion and “gay marriage” is not going to change. These things will never be considered good. Do you seriously think this will change Cali?

Protestantism? A complicated question, but it has to do with the discovery that Sola Scriptura is not biblical, and the discovery that sacraments and other Catholic concepts (Mary, saints, etc) are biblical.

It also has to do with my being disillusioned with the shallowness of Protestant community, and my disillusionment with Evangelical churches which operate like Hollywood productions, and sell emotional experiences without any intellectual backing.

I am not asking the Vatican to change. What I am contending is that the political mandates that conservative Catholics say exist, in reality do not exist. If they do not exist, then conservative Catholics are disingenous to continue to insist they do exist, and are treacherously lying. I have already found a loophole with the citation of the rest of paragraph 73 of Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps there are more.

 

[Rau]

You didn’t cite the rest of paragraph 73. Here it is:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter.** In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. **

Am I vindicated? Could it be??

Hardly! What that means is that it’s OK to take the wins that present themselves, and then you continue the fight.

It is definitely a medical matter because pregnancy is a health risk requiring a visit to the doctor, and by logic the decision to terminate pregnancy falls within that umbrella. No I am not comfortable with killing of infants because born infants have constitutional rights. I know you find that explanation trite but that’s more than sufficient for me.

Pregnancy is a medical matter. Most abortions are not a response to a medical problem - ie. they cannot (even euphemistically) be called a medical treatment. Most abortions are due to these 3 primary reasons:

• Not yet ready for a child,
• Have enough children,
• Can’t afford baby now.
  johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
  Very few abortions are a response to a medical problem threatening the life of the mother. It is nowadays unheard of for the only medical treatment available to the mother (whose life is at risk from pregnancy) to be the murder of the baby.

Cali - you claim a desire to embrace a system of faith and morals (call it a Religion), and you find yourself drifting toward the Catholic church. Yet, you impose a requirement to subordinate that system of faith and morals to the law making of earthly States. Religion is from God, yet you say it must be subordinated to the laws of men - that is, what the State says is OK, is OK. Presumably, the only bad things are what the State says are bad? So why do you need to have any religion beyond the Laws of the State?

I am not asking the Vatican to change. What I am contending is that the political mandates that conservative Catholics say exist, in reality do not exist. If they do not exist, then conservative Catholics are disingenous to continue to insist they do exist, and are treacherously lying. I have already found a loophole with the citation of the rest of paragraph 73 of Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps there are more.

As I pointed out, you found no loophole.

And as I have previously remarked, what if the Church did not advocate that Catholics ought to lean on their representatives to adopt pro-life positions? What difference would that make? Certainly it has no bearing on the morality of abortion, which morality derives from God, not earthly laws. And I contend that few if any Catholics would change their vote - do you seriously suggests that all the “conservative Catholics” to whom you refer only vote the way they do because the Church tells them too?

But Cali, forget the politics, or at least, put it on the back-burner. Should not your first concern be for the future of your own soul? Should you not focus on thinking through your own faith and morals, rather than worrying about how others (principally Catholics) feel about theirs? And you need to get past the idea that right and wrong are determined by the US Constitution, rather than by God.

 

[CaliLobo]

Hardly! What that means is that it’s OK to take the wins that present themselves, and then you continue the fight.

I think we’re saying the same thing two different ways.

Very few abortions are a response to a medical problem threatening the life of the mother. It is nowadays unheard of for the only medical treatment available to the mother (whose life is at risk from pregnancy) to be the murder of the baby.

We are a free society, and free people, not a theocracy. I simply believe it is unnecessary, and unwise, to impose legal bans on all sinful items. If you oppose abortion, don’t get one. But don’t infringe on the civil liberties of others.

Cali - you claim a desire to embrace a system of faith and morals (call it a Religion), and you find yourself drifting toward the Catholic church. Yet, you impose a requirement to subordinate that system of faith and morals to the law making of earthly States. Religion is from God, yet you say it must be subordinated to the laws of men - that is, what the State says is OK, is OK. Presumably, the only bad things are what the State says are bad? So why do you need to have any religion beyond the Laws of the State?

I never said religion should be subordinated to the laws of men. Rather, I advocate political pragmatism. Religion is still necessary because it answers the biggest existential questions, like what is the meaning of life.

And as I have previously remarked, what if the Church did not advocate that Catholics ought to lean on their representatives to adopt pro-life positions? What difference would that make? Certainly it has no bearing on the morality of abortion, which morality derives from God, not earthly laws. And I contend that few if any Catholics would change their vote - do you seriously suggests that all the “conservative Catholics” to whom you refer only vote the way they do because the Church tells them too?

It would have no bearing on the morality of abortion. But it still makes a huge difference, as then I can vote pragmatically. Yes, it is very possible that many Catholics vote a certain way because the Church tells them to. How else to explain one-issue voters? I have known Christians who say they would gladly vote for the other guy, if it weren’t for abortion, or gay marriages.

An interesting article I got on my other thread: libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/25/new-testament-theology-1/

In each gospel, the question is prefaced differently, but the phrasing of the question itself is always the same: “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” The question is very clever. The Herodians would be for paying the tax, and if Jesus answers in the negative they have grounds to arrest him for rebelling against Caesar. On the other hand, the Pharisees would generally not like the tax (although they are forced to pay it), and an answer in the affirmative would likely result in a loss of popular support of Jesus. Furthermore, there is a subtle legal phrasing in the question by asking “is it lawful,” or in some translations “is it permitted.” In other words, the Pharisees are asking, “Is it consistent with Torah (Jewish Law) to pay the tax to Caesar or not?” All those present were aware of the law and of the words of Leviticus 25:23, “The land [of Israel] shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine.” The question is now more complicated because Torah may be at stake. Since Caesar is trying to take the land from God, is it not disobedience to pay the tax?

Jesus saw through the trickery, of course, and responds with a clever gambit of his own. When he asks the Pharisees to produce a coin, they unwittingly bring forth the very evidence that exposes their hypocrisy. Jesus asks them whose image and inscription is on the coin. They answer, probably reluctantly, “Caesar’s.” But they, and the surrounding people, realize their error, for the inscriptions on these coins would always read, “Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of the deified Augustus, chief priest.” **The Pharisees, those leaders expected to uphold the law of God, have brought into the temple an item that effectively breaks the second commandment, to have no graven images, showing that in their hearts they break the first commandment as well. They, not Jesus, are the hypocrites. They are the ones who bought into the Roman’s pagan system. **In commentator Thomas Long’s estimation, Jesus’ response means, “Everybody has to decide between Caesar and God. No man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). You seem to have made your decision, forged your convenient compromise. But what about your obligation to God? Render to God what belongs to God. Choose this day whom you will serve” (251).

If this interpretation is correct, then there is effectively no guideline set forth here for resolving church and state issues. State practices are not legitimized here by any means. Rather, Jesus says that any neat schemes of division in life that we create must come down, and discourages nationalism or jingoism as a legitimate church practice. We may live under a state, but we belong wholly to the God who is above all states. We are always to render to God what is God’s.

In summary, Jesus’ direct teachings about civil government are virtually non-existent, but the gospels make some strong implications about the nature of the state that might surprise us. The state appears to have a strong connection to Satan and his kingdom, and is antithetical to the Kingdom of God, which shuns the use of power for personal gain.

If this is true, it lends credence to my contention that Jesus is above secular politics and does not really care which way political systems go, therefore making our votes irrelevant in his eyes.

 

[Rau]

We are a free society, and free people, not a theocracy. I simply believe it is unnecessary, and unwise, to impose legal bans on all sinful items. If you oppose abortion, don’t get one. But don’t infringe on the civil liberties of others.

Are you saying that Catholics should not vote down “abortion on demand” laws given the opportunity to so, or that the Catholic Church should express no opinion on which way they should vote?

Your view is that the ONLY reason to oppose the murder of infants is that it is counter to a right afforded to the infant by the US constitution. But what if that right were not there (yet), and we were contemplating what rights should exist? How do we decide? ** Absent the US constitution (and relevant laws),** would you have any objection to parents murdering any new-borns which were in excess of their requirements? Would you be OK with the State setting up a law that said it’s OK for parents to murder their infants before their first birthday, but not subsequently? How would you vote on that law?

I never said religion should be subordinated to the laws of men.

You do so repeatedly. Most recently when you said the reason not kill a new born was the right afforded by the constitution. God’s law did not get a mention…

Rather, I advocate political pragmatism. Religion is still necessary because it answers the biggest existential questions, like what is the meaning of life.

There you go again! Pragmatism (in the context you express it) is exactly subordinating the laws of God to those of man (in your view) - it calls on believers to refrain from giving Witness to the Truth at the ballot box. You argue to give up a struggle because it cannot be won (in your view). Your position is to deny that there is any absolute divide between the moral and the immoral. That some acts are intrinsically immoral (and NOT by virtue of the US Constitution!) is a most fundamental tenet of Catholicism, and it is broader than the “social” issues of “gay marriage” and “abortion” that you focus on.

It would have no bearing on the morality of abortion.

Nor does the position taken by US Law.

But it still makes a huge difference, as then I can vote pragmatically. Yes, it is very possible that many Catholics vote a certain way because the Church tells them to. How else to explain one-issue voters?

Actually, I think nearly everyone votes pragmatically (with a view to their hip pocket…) anyway. I have said it before - the fact that the Church advocates voting for pro-life candidates is a red-herring in the larger question.

An interesting article I got on my other thread: libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/25/new-testament-theology-1/

If this is true, it lends credence to my contention that Jesus is above secular politics and does not really care which way political systems go, therefore making our votes irrelevant in his eyes.

I think a connection to your thesis is tenuous at best. Jesus may be above secular politics, but do you think he means us to favour laws that send a message counter to HIs own? Jesus is “above” commerce and business, but do you think his teachings have no relevance for how we conduct business affairs? When a Catholic citizen fills out a referendum form and answers the question: “Do you approve of a law to …” - how would you like him to decide his answer? Should he seek out a pragmatic, atheist lawyer and ask how he intends to vote? Or should he consult his mind and his conscience and answer accordingly?

 

[seakelp]

I think it’s hard to justify being pro-choice as a Catholic.

I think, and have argued (discussed) this with other people before on this forum, that it’s possible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice politician.

That having been said, if there were the equivalent of a nation-wide initiative vote on whether abortion should be legal, I (and I expect most Catholics) would vote, “No.”

To be honest, though, I doubt making abortion illegal in the United States would do little to actually stop abortion. That’s why I see the issue of being pro-choice or pro-life as rather one dimensional and unhelpful. If we look deeply into the social causes of unwanted pregnancies, we could do a much better job of stopping them from happening in the first place.

 

[CaliLobo]

Are you saying that Catholics should not vote down “abortion on demand” laws given the opportunity to so, or that the Catholic Church should express no opinion on which way they should vote?

The latter. The Catholic Church, like the Protestant and Orthodox churches, should not express how its people should vote. In the USA it cannot legally express it either, or it loses tax-exempt status.

If Catholic means universal, then it’s not possible to have a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to the intersection of religion and politics. What’s appropriate for a Third World country is not the same as what’s appropriate for the USA.

Rau:

Your view is that the ONLY reason to oppose the murder of infants is that it is counter to a right afforded to the infant by the US constitution. But what if that right were not there (yet), and we were contemplating what rights should exist? How do we decide? ** Absent the US constitution (and relevant laws),** would you have any objection to parents murdering any new-borns which were in excess of their requirements? Would you be OK with the State setting up a law that said it’s OK for parents to murder their infants before their first birthday, but not subsequently? How would you vote on that law?

Nope, that’s not the only reason.

I understand the compassion for babies that pro-life people have. But from a policymaking perspective, it is a policy that is not fully thought through.

1. Banning abortion will only force abortion to occur illegally underground, where it will be even more unsafe for women.
2. Banning abortion does not change human behavior. For example, in Korea, abortion is technically illegal but remains rampant. Haven’t we learned the lesson from Prohibition (the 18th Amendment in the US constitution that banned alcohol sales, which was later repealed by the 21st)? All it did was force alcohol sales to go underground in speakeasies (underground bars). It also raised crime.
3. Abortion should remain primarily a women’s issue. As a man, it is not proper for me to impose my will unilaterally against women, or do or say things that make women uncomfortable. Polls show that single women overwhelmingly support abortion because they will be the most victimized by an unwanted pregnancy.
4. In turn, single women who struggle to raise children will drain our social safety net.
5. I agree with what Obama said in 2008: “I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.”

To sum it up, my Christian compassion for women is the reason why I do not oppose women’s rights to abortion. I believe abortion is a cruel practice, and most likely a sin, but because of my compassion for women, I am understanding of women who do abort, and do not oppose their legal right to do so.

Rau:

Actually, I think nearly everyone votes pragmatically (with a view to their hip pocket…) anyway. I have said it before - the fact that the Church advocates voting for pro-life candidates is a red-herring in the larger question.

And I disagree. Many Christians are one-issue voters. They will vote for a candidate simply because of his stance on abortion.

Rau:

I think a connection to your thesis is tenuous at best. Jesus may be above secular politics, but do you think he means us to favour laws that send a message counter to HIs own? Jesus is “above” commerce and business, but do you think his teachings have no relevance for how we conduct business affairs? When a Catholic citizen fills out a referendum form and answers the question: “Do you approve of a law to …” - how would you like him to decide his answer? Should he seek out a pragmatic, atheist lawyer and ask how he intends to vote? Or should he consult his mind and his conscience and answer accordingly?

I believe it is possible to support women’s rights and gay rights, and position that in a way that is consistent with the message of Christ.

The church should tackle the root causes of social problems, not try to impose its values on society through the ballot box.

seakelp:

To be honest, though, I doubt making abortion illegal in the United States would do little to actually stop abortion. That’s why I see the issue of being pro-choice or pro-life as rather one dimensional and unhelpful. If we look deeply into the social causes of unwanted pregnancies, we could do a much better job of stopping them from happening in the first place.

I agree.

 

[Rau]

The latter. The Catholic Church, like the Protestant and Orthodox churches, should not express how its people should vote. …
If Catholic means universal, then it’s not possible to have a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to the intersection of religion and politics. What’s appropriate for a Third World country is not the same as what’s appropriate for the USA.

Actually, I have no strong opinion on the idea that the Church should proclaim morality and be circumspect on “who to vote for”. Where I live, the Church is not prescriptive, but rather prepares a document setting out the position on relevant policies of candidates, then leaves it to the people to decide.

I don’t really get your "one size fits all point ". In so far as intrinsically evil acts are concerned, one size really does fit all - that is a **fundamental **tenet of Catholic morality:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1. Banning abortion will only force abortion to occur illegally underground, where it will be even more unsafe for women.
2. Banning abortion does not change human behavior. For example, in Korea, abortion is technically illegal but remains rampant. Haven’t we learned the lesson from Prohibition (the 18th Amendment in the US constitution that banned alcohol sales, which was later repealed by the 21st)? All it did was force alcohol sales to go underground in speakeasies (underground bars). It also raised crime.

I have no argument with that, particularly if the sanction is severe and the society continues to provide support for those considering abortion.

1. Abortion should remain primarily a women’s issue. As a man, it is not proper for me to impose my will unilaterally against women, or do or say things that make women uncomfortable. Polls show that single women overwhelmingly support abortion because they will be the most victimized by an unwanted pregnancy.

Cali - the murdered children are both male and female. The parents are both male and female.

To sum it up, my Christian compassion for women is the reason why I do not oppose women’s rights to abortion. I believe abortion is a cruel practice, and most likely a sin, but because of my compassion for women, I am understanding of women who do abort, and do not oppose their legal right to do so.

Only “probably” a sin?
Cali - should any woman in any circumstance have the “right” to have an abortion, or with restrictions.

And you omitted to respond to my following statement:
“Your view is that the ONLY reason to oppose the murder of infants (ie. new-borns) is that it is counter to a right afforded to the infant by the US constitution. But what if that right were not there (yet), and we were contemplating what rights should exist? How do we decide? Absent the US constitution (and relevant laws), would you have any objection to parents murdering any new-borns which were in excess of their requirements? Would you be OK with the State setting up a law that said it’s OK for parents to murder their infants before their first birthday, but not subsequently? How would you vote on that law?”

Many Christians are one-issue voters. They will vote for a candidate simply because of his stance on abortion.

Which is perfectly OK. The question (in your mind) ought to be whether they do that because of the issues, or solely because the they believe the Church so instructs them. I believe there are few in the latter category, and somewhat more in the former, and the bulk for whom the issue is weighed in the mix of election issues.

I believe it is possible to support women’s rights and gay rights, and position that in a way that is consistent with the message of Christ.

Could you please provide an example of such a message - true to the goals of pro-abortionists and gay-‘rights’, and in keeping with ALL of Christ’s message.

The church should tackle the root causes of social problems

True. And keep in mind in this respect that the Church means you and me too.

… not try to impose its values on society through the ballot box.

There are two questions, quite distinct:

1. Is abortion moral?
2. Should the State make abortion illegal and with what punishment?

Cali - I do wish you would explain why you have doubt about it sinfulness.

If abortion is moral, it is not clear why the State would conclude it should be illegal. However, the reverse is not so clear, and is the root of the question. Lying to one’s wife is immoral but it is not a crime, and I don’t know anyone who advocates that it should be. It is a crime to murder a new-born, and in many places to murder the ‘late-term’ unborn, but not at an earlier time. Yet all are immoral.

But these two issues rarely get separated, do they. Where are the politicians who declare: “I think abortion is a gravely immoral act, and I pray women will not take that course. But I also believe that making abortion illegal, punished as murder, will not stem the evil trade in death, but instead produce even greater evils.”

No - the “pro-death” agenda is to deny the human life counts for anything, to declare it is “just fine” to murder the unborn, and that the law must promote that position, and that we must view it as just an element of “women’s health”.

 

[Rau]

Where in Catholic teaching is the Catholic mandate to oppose abortion politically? Let’s discuss.

Why doesn’t the Catholic Church meet in the middle and allow abortion in cases of incest, rape, or abuse? Wouldn’t that be a better practical solution, and in turn, reduce most abortions?

Why does it have to oppose all abortion at all costs, alienating all of society?

Let’s not bring up political parties this time; let’s keep the thread open.

Cali - it occurs to me you have asked the “wrong” question(s). The Catholic Church must teach the Truth - that abortion is murder, an intrinsic evil, that is always wrong. There cannot be exceptions, ever. That fully answers your question(s) as posed.

I think the question that perhaps you mean to pose is NOT about Church teaching, but about whether there is merit in reflecting the above moral Truth in the law of the land, and if so, in what form. The debate, broadly, would be about what is the most effective social response to the prevalence of abortion. That enables an airing of your concern that laws are an ineffective response (to abortion), because the law is easily evaded by taking the acts of abortion “underground”, driving potentially worse scenarios. On the other side of the coin is the question of how the law of murder can draw a distinction between the very young (unborn) and others.

To be argued sensibly, the persons debating have to start with a common premise - the only relevant one being that abortion is the sin of murder and our objective is to reduce its prevalence as much as possible.

 

[teeboy]

Life is the fundamental right. Without life, there is no right to practice religion, right to speech, right to defend oneself, right to property, etc…

That said, now put an individual’s right to choose on one said of the bar scale and another individual’s right to life on the other side of the bar scale.

 

[teeboy]

Why do you assume that all of society is alienated by the position of the Catholic Church?

Some of us join the church (in part) because of the Church’s strong social stances, not in spite of them. (Shocker, I know! )

Honestly, my only exception tends to be if the life of the mother is danger. Both lives are valuable. I can see where sometimes it would be necessary to save the living woman over the child in the womb. However, if a woman’s pregnancy is a healthy pregnancy, then I struggle to support the decision to abort, regardless of “the reason.”

In the end, people have been taught that the “personal is political”. So, like everything else, you’ll find people on opposite sides of the question.

People can be “faithful” Catholics and call themselves politically Liberal or conservative.

But, to answer your question, the mandate comes from people who believe that preventing abortions makes our society more virtuous/Godly.

While that answer may seem unsatisfactory, it’s the closest you probably are going to get to one w/out saying the words “Republicans” or “Democrats”.

Not everyone subscribes to a “cafeteria” or Liberal version of God. And some people are going to vote for what they think God would approve of in their ballot boxes.

People are free to disagree with me.

God bless America and free speech rights!

However, I go back to the fact that I will never know if the baby my mom aborted from a rape was a boy or a girl. A brother or a sister. A member of my family died when she had that abortion. That’s the tragic part to me. I never got to know this unique person because my mom felt like she had to get an abortion.

I don’t want other people to feel that loss and like something is missing in their lives.

Justice is grounded in charity. The new covenant is all about charity. Jesus died on the cross for us out of charity. Out of charity, the mother would not purchase her own life with her child’s life.

Jesus purchased us with his own life. A Christian would be expected to do the same for her child.

 

[teeboy]

The CCC teaches a duty to vote for candidates who will work to pass laws or enforce laws that are in line with the moral law. The CCC teaches that abortion is against the moral law. Therefore, Catholics have a duty to vote for politicians who will not support abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The CCC teaches a duty to vote for candidates who will work to pass laws or enforce laws that are in line with the moral law. The CCC teaches that abortion is against the moral law. Therefore, Catholics have a duty to vote for politicians who will not support abortion.

This is an over-simplification of what the CCC teaches. Fornication is also against the moral law. Without some further qualification, we would have to conclude from your argument that Catholics have a duty to vote for politicians who will pass laws against fornication. Is that a conclusion you can support without qualification?

 

[teeboy]

This is an over-simplification of what the CCC teaches. Fornication is also against the moral law. Without some further qualification, we would have to conclude from your argument that Catholics have a duty to vote for politicians who will pass laws against fornication. Is that a conclusion you can support without qualification?

Fornication is grounds for divorce under the Civil laws of my state.

Just because an act isn’t a crime doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any implication with the law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fornication is grounds for divorce under the Civil laws of my state.

Just because an act isn’t a crime doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any implication with the law.

Surely you are not suggesting that abortion should be treated as lightly as fornication? What if a politician proposed keeping abortion legal, but making it grounds for divorce? Or better yet, how about addressing the overly-simple argument you gave explaining the Catholic’s obligation to vote for an anti-abortion candidate?

 

[teeboy]

Surely you are not suggesting that abortion should be treated as lightly as fornication? What if a politician proposed keeping abortion legal, but making it grounds for divorce? Or better yet, how about addressing the overly-simple argument you gave explaining the Catholic’s obligation to vote for an anti-abortion candidate?

Surely you are not suggesting that abourtion should be treated as a lightly as fornication? You have said so. If you believe otherwise, you have no grounds for such belief.

What if a politician proposed keeping abortion legal, but making it grounds for divorce? You don’t need a comma before “but”; the trialing clause is dependent. My answer is that it is better than not making it grounds for divorce.

Or better yet, how about addressing the overly-simple argument you gave explaining the Catholic’s obligation to vote for an anti-abortion candidate? So, you admit that a Catholic does have an obligation. At least we agree on that. Sometimes simple is better.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, you admit that a Catholic does have an obligation. At least we agree on that. Sometimes simple is better.

A bad argument in support of a good point is still a bad argument. You still have not addressed the flaw I pointed out in your argument in my very first response to you.

Simple is better, except when it is wrong.