Where is the Catholic political anti-abortion mandate?

[LeafByNiggle]

Then, that invention is an invention of the American political conservatives who just happen to be Catholic Bishops.

There is an episode of Catholic Answers Live where Archbishop Sample talks about the non-negotiables. He says that the official Church documents, from especially the USCCB, are written in a way which assumes the reader understands moral theology (aka - they are really written for priests & bishops). He says he’s in favor of re-writing them to be more straightforward and says that Catholic Answers’ list of non-negotiable is the correct understanding of our voting requirements.

Life issues should trump every other Catholic or political issue, because if people don’t have the right to life, then all other rights are meaningless.

From a secular point of view, the founding fathers of America came up with some inalienable rights too… The right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

That order is important… you cannot have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” if you do not have the rights of life and liberty. You cannot have the rights of liberty & “the pursuit of happiness” without the right to life. The Rights to Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness are DEPENDENT on the Right to Life.

This is why the founding fathers didn’t say “The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, Liberty, and Life.” Today’s society has everything backwards, even these rights. We put happiness above all else. People put their happiness above other people’s rights to life and liberty (especially the unborn, sick and elderly).

America, let’s get back in order!

This may come as a surprise to you, but Catholic Answers is not an official teaching arm of the Catholic Church. It is composed of actual people with actual political opinions that can make their way into their interpretation of Catholic Doctrine.

Despite the fact that you quoted my posting in its entirety, you did not address any of the points I made - you only restated the hypothesis that appeals to you. How about addressing these points:

1. Why is it that this supposed mandate requires that we sacrifice everything in voting to further this one cause, but we are not required to sacrifice everything in other areas of life for this same cause? Why does this mandate only apply to voting?
2. If this mandate is so clear, why hasn’t it been expressed clearly in official Church teaching?

Finally, why are you so much more concerned with American founding fathers documents than with Catholic Church documents? You cannot support a Catholic religious claim by citing secular documents.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
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.

This same argument was used to justify slavery. “If you oppose slavery, don’t own a slave.” The civil liberties of others does not include infringing on someone else’s higher civil liberties. Everyone owes everyone else the right to life, liberty, and property, IOW justice, … in that order. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court put the property rights of a slave owner above the liberty rights of the slave. The Roe v. Wade decision did the same thing. If you want justice for yourself, you have to give it to others.

BTW, the argument of forcing one’s beliefs on others doesn’t hold any water. Whoever is in charge is going to force his beliefs of what is right and wrong on the rest of us. That’s why you select candidate A instead of B when you vote: you prefer A’s programs.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…

Life issues should trump every other Catholic or political issue, because if people don’t have the right to life, then all other rights are meaningless.

From a secular point of view, the founding fathers of America came up with some inalienable rights too… The right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

That order is important… you cannot have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” if you do not have the rights of life and liberty. You cannot have the rights of liberty & “the pursuit of happiness” without the right to life. The Rights to Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness are DEPENDENT on the Right to Life.

…

 

[Scottgun]

Few Catholics would vote for a Klansman even if he was running for Town Dog-Catcher. Not sure why people in favor of dismembering innocent humans in womb get a pass.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Few Catholics would vote for a Klansman even if he was running for Town Dog-Catcher. Not sure why people in favor of dismembering innocent humans in womb get a pass.

Mega

 

[Rau]

The ultimate law would be a complete repeal of Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal. What the penalties should be, I’m not sure. I would say jail for sure for a doctor illegally performing it. But for someone who self aborts… perhaps a minimum security location with counseling? Motive and psychological examinations will be needed. Why did the person abort vs. give the child up for adoption? Were they scared, traumatized, etc? That’s why I think punishments of the women should be light and focus on counseling and the psychological pain from the ordeal.

But in the meantime, I would be 100% in support of laws and regulations which limit abortions and educate mothers.

Examples:

1. an abortionist should be required to earn admittance to a hospital. Why? To make sure the doctors are practicing beyond reproach.
2. before electing an abortion, abortionists should be required to show the mother what the child looks like at that moment in time, so mothers are fully aware of what they are electing to do.
3. abortionists should be required to perform an ultrasound before the abortion to help make sure the patient doesn’t change her mind.
4. counseling about adoption should be mandatory before an abortion. (if abortions were required to be in a hospital, then this could be done by a pro life medical professional)
5. abortionists should be required to discuss the abortion procedure completely with the mother, so she knows exactly what will happen to the child. (if abortions were required to be in a hospital, then this could be done by a pro life medical professional)
6. It should be considered MURDER to kill a child who is born after a failed abortion. Every effort should be made to save the life of the child once it is outside the womb and alive (especially with third trimester abortions).
7. Which leads me to this: third trimester abortions should be illegal. Period.
8. Abortion clinics should be required to provide post abortion counseling to help with the grief women have after an abortion. (if abortions were required to be in a hospital, then this could be done by a pro life medical professional or at least someone professionally trained in this area)

There are other points I’m sure I’m missing. Implementation of any of these regulations would be better than doing nothing.

After all these years since Roe v Wade, not even the provisions you list above are introduced. They are no doubt seen to be the thin edge of the wedge (which they are) and are fought tooth and nail by pro-abortion lobbyists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… Not sure why people in favor of dismembering innocent humans in womb get a pass.

This is not an accurate portrayal of that position, because even those that are pro-choice are not in favor of people having abortions. Mostly they only disagree with you over the extent to which civil law should punish or allow such actions by others.

 

[unstoppable_II]

This is not an accurate portrayal of that position, because even those that are pro-choice are not in favor of people having abortions. Mostly they only disagree with you over the extent to which civil law should punish or allow such actions by others.

If that were true, why do they kill babies who have survived an abortion?

 

[CaliLobo]

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

It is women that are being victimized by unwanted pregnancy, and that is why most unmarried women support abortion.

Rau:

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

I do support some restrictions to abortion.

Rau:

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?”

Interesting question. You are right, I think our education system preconditions us with notions on what civil rights ought to consist of. I suppose if our education system portrayed infanticide as a necessary evil, then I would support those rights. But it does not. But infanticide is already happening around our world.

Rau:

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.

There is only one type of love, and that is love. God is love. To reject the genuine love that gay couples have is to reject God, for God is love. It is also a rejection of gays, which Christ would not have done.

Regarding abortion, to insist to women that they have to suffer through a pregnancy turns God into a demon. It is more loving to be understanding of women’s situations and have compassion for them and their reasons for having an abortion.

Either way, there is nothing on point against abortion in the Bible. And is the Bible speaking against homosexuality, or merely temple prostitution and pederasty??

Rau:

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

Because there is nothing on point against abortion in the Bible, and because there is doubt as to whether abortion fits the definition of murder. Murder requires a certain type of criminal intent. People who abort are not quite doing so with the criminal intent to murder.

Rau:

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:

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.

But that’s what I believe. That making abortion illegal will not stem the evil trade in death, but will instead produce even greater evils.

In Catholic language, I believe abortion and gay marriage bans do not promote the greater good. I believe abortion bans will force it underground, making abortion more unsafe. I believe abortion bans will drain the social safety net, bankrupting our country. I believe gay marriage bans will create a subclass of people who are denied the privileges and benefits of life, in effect criminalizing homosexuality without making it a crime. Because criminal punishment is, indeed, the deprivation of property, liberty, or life.

 

[CaliLobo]

LeafByNiggle:

This looks like a nice exposition of your personal strategy for living out your Catholic faith. If it works for you, then fine. But it is not a pure and necessary consequence of Church teaching. It is your prudential judgement.

The notion of one or a small number of issues absolutely “trumping” every other issue of moral value is an invention of American political conservatives. You won’t find this principle stated in the catechism. What you will find is instruction to weigh all issues in the light of the Church teaching through an informed conscience. But you still have to do the weighing. No one else is doing it for you.

With regard to the specific issue of voting, that is just one of many ways we may express our faith values. It is odd that these absolutes of issue-trumping only seem to apply to voting and not to other activities where more discretion is allowed.

In the area of personal behavior, there is no conflict between moral values. Which moral rules should we personally abide by? The answer is “all of them”. The difficulty comes when we are called upon to control the behavior of others (as in voting). Here we don’t have as much fine-grain control over individual decisions. We can only pick people or platforms. And the catechism provides no simple formula for doing that.

Rau:

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.

Could it be? That I am vindicated after all? And that there is no political anti-abortion mandate for Catholics after all??

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Could it be? That I am vindicated after all? And that there is no political anti-abortion mandate for Catholics after all??

Why are you attempting to make it a political stance ‘only’?

Abortion is a human rights issue. Aren’t human rights something which, uh, transcend politics?

Most people, whether they are conservative politically or liberal politically would say that trafficking in female sex slaves is wrong. They would say so whether they were male or female. Further, if men were sold as sex slaves (and yes, there are cases of this, especially of children), they would find this wrong as well, again, no matter what their ‘politics’ were.

So why is the killing of human babies. . .male and female. . .being turned into something that is only ‘relevant’ to mothers (as though fathers didn’t care about their children). . or only about whether people in one political party acknowledge the moral wrong of this, and others have ‘reservations’ about 'situations"?

I’ll say it again:

Abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. It is not a ‘political issue’ which can be ‘upheld’ by one ‘party’ and ‘not’ by another, any more than slavery was ‘upheld’ 150 some years ago by one party but not ‘another.’

 

[Rau]

It is women that are being victimized by unwanted pregnancy, and that is why most unmarried women support abortion.

I gave you earlier stats for causes of abortion. While the reasons for abortion span a spectrum of motivations, the vast majority are for “convenience”. We are speaking about morality now. Please explain how your argument here stands up when the abortion is sought for the “convenience” of the parent - with no issue of poverty or inability to manage? And in circumstances where adoption is so readily available.

I do support some restrictions to abortion.

Please elaborate - and explain why you believe there must be any restrictions at all.

Interesting question. You are right, I think our education system preconditions us with notions on what civil rights ought to consist of. I suppose if our education system portrayed infanticide as a necessary evil, then I would support those rights. But it does not. But infanticide is already happening around our world.

Earlier you opined that perhaps abortion was sinful, though you were unsure. Now you hypothesize that subject to what the State teaches, you might be convinced that infanticide is OK. You understand you are making an argument that human life really is nothing special. You are making an argument that there is no God, or if there is, that we are nothing special in His eyes.

There is only one type of love, and that is love. God is love. To reject the genuine love that gay couples have is to reject God, for God is love. It is also a rejection of gays, which Christ would not have done.

There are multiple proper manifestations of love Cali. None of them need to be rejected. That does not get us to a position to conclude that same sex sexual relations are proper.

Regarding abortion, to insist to women that they have to suffer through a pregnancy turns God into a demon. It is more loving to be understanding of women’s situations and have compassion for them and their reasons for having an abortion.

To tell parents that they have no responsibility for the children they conceive - feel free to discard any not required - does not sound like a message from Christ.

Either way, there is nothing on point against abortion in the Bible.

God’s interest in us starts rather long before our birth Cali: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” [Jeremiah 1:5]

Because there is nothing on point against abortion in the Bible, and because there is doubt as to whether abortion fits the definition of murder. Murder requires a certain type of criminal intent. People who abort are not quite doing so with the criminal intent to murder.

See above. What in the Bible leads you to conclude that “Thou Shall Not Murder” only kicks in after the baby is born? Is that really the “natural” interpretation, or just a “hoped for” one?

But that’s what I believe. That making abortion illegal will not stem the evil trade in death, but will instead produce even greater evils.

So now it’s an evil trade? You just finished saying that it’s a good thing because it helps women. You just finished saying that you could be persuaded that infanticide might be acceptable. You just finished saying that the Bible does not speak against it. You make a case that it is not an immoral act to abort a child, and a moment later that abortion is an “evil trade in death”! Cali - you need to settle your thinking. You need to decide the morality question (one way or the other), then decide how you’d like to see society respond.

In Catholic language, I believe abortion and gay marriage bans do not promote the greater good.

The Church’s moral teaching can’t adjust according to how it might be received. The Church can only teach what is true. AGAIN - you need to separate your thinking on the morality, from what you’d like society to do. If you want to make an argument that introducing a blanket prohibition on abortion would not reduce the evil, I’m open to listening to that.

I believe abortion bans will force it underground, making abortion more unsafe. I believe abortion bans will drain the social safety net, bankrupting our country.

This is a challenge for our societal response, not for our assessment of what is moral behaviour.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If that were true, why do they kill babies who have survived an abortion?

We are talking about two distinct groups of people. You are talking about people who actually perform abortions. Whereas I as addressing post #64, in which Scottgun was talking about politicians who are not sufficiently opposed to permitting abortion.

 

[CaliLobo]

I gave you earlier stats for causes of abortion. While the reasons for abortion span a spectrum of motivations, the vast majority are for “convenience”. We are speaking about morality now. Please explain how your argument here stands up when the abortion is sought for the “convenience” of the parent - with no issue of poverty or inability to manage? And in circumstances where adoption is so readily available.

That is irrelevant. The gist of my argument is that legislating morality is not required in Catholicism, nor does it bring about the public good. Behavior is better changed through evangelization.

Rau:

Please elaborate - and explain why you believe there must be any restrictions at all.

Well, with legalization must come regulation. But there should be reasonable standards. Regarding parental permission requirements, in theory they are wise but in practice it will also lead women to seek abortion underground.

Rau:

Earlier you opined that perhaps abortion was sinful, though you were unsure. Now you hypothesize that subject to what the State teaches, you might be convinced that infanticide is OK. You understand you are making an argument that human life really is nothing special. You are making an argument that there is no God, or if there is, that we are nothing special in His eyes.

You jump to conclusions. There are times when the ending of a human life is necessary, for example in war and law enforcement. We are also realizing that there are times when euthanasia may be the wisest choice. None of this means that human life is not special.

Rau:

There are multiple proper manifestations of love Cali. None of them need to be rejected. That does not get us to a position to conclude that same sex sexual relations are proper.

Don’t you understand? As long as homosexuality is considered normal and not a disease, it is futile to insist that gay couples be denied marriage rights. We have seen that gay couples are fully capable of raising children in stable households.

It is futile to insist that a secular government (“the world”) conform to Christian teaching. Why? Because the world does not believe.

Evangelism is the key.

Rau:

To tell parents that they have no responsibility for the children they conceive - feel free to discard any not required - does not sound like a message from Christ.

God’s interest in us starts rather long before our birth Cali: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” [Jeremiah 1:5]

How does Jeremiah 1:5 have anything on point to do with abortion? Pray tell.

Rau:

See above. What in the Bible leads you to conclude that “Thou Shall Not Murder” only kicks in after the baby is born? Is that really the “natural” interpretation, or just a “hoped for” one?

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that when a woman commits the act of abortion, it is unclear whether at that moment, she has a criminal intent in her mind. In the law, all crimes require a state of mind (“mens rea”) and a corresponding act (“actus reus”). In the case of an abortion, what is the woman’s mens rea as she commits the act?

Rau:

So now it’s an evil trade? You just finished saying that it’s a good thing because it helps women. You just finished saying that you could be persuaded that infanticide might be acceptable. You just finished saying that the Bible does not speak against it. You make a case that it is not an immoral act to abort a child, and a moment later that abortion is an “evil trade in death”! Cali - you need to settle your thinking. You need to decide the morality question (one way or the other), then decide how you’d like to see society respond.

I cut and pasted your quote without reading carefully. My stance can be summed up in the end of last post:

In Catholic language, I believe abortion and gay marriage bans do not promote the greater good. I believe abortion bans will force it underground, making abortion more unsafe. I believe abortion bans will drain the social safety net, bankrupting our country. I believe gay marriage bans will create a subclass of people who are denied the privileges and benefits of life, in effect criminalizing homosexuality without making it a crime. Because criminal punishment is, indeed, the deprivation of property, liberty, or life.

Rau:

The Church’s moral teaching can’t adjust according to how it might be received. The Church can only teach what is true. AGAIN - you need to separate your thinking on the morality, from what you’d like society to do. **If you want to make an argument that introducing a blanket prohibition on abortion would not reduce the evil, I’m open to listening to that. **

This is a challenge for our societal response, not for our assessment of what is moral behaviour.

I already have posited an argument in blue above. Response?

 

[phil19034]

This may come as a surprise to you, but Catholic Answers is not an official teaching arm of the Catholic Church. It is composed of actual people with actual political opinions that can make their way into their interpretation of Catholic Doctrine.

I never claimed that they are an “official teaching arm.” I said that the Archbishop Sample said that Catholic Answers’ interpretation is the correct one.

Despite the fact that you quoted my posting in its entirety, you did not address any of the points I made - you only restated the hypothesis that appeals to you. How about addressing these points:

1. Why is it that this supposed mandate requires that we sacrifice everything in voting to further this one cause, but we are not required to sacrifice everything in other areas of life for this same cause? Why does this mandate only apply to voting?

first of all, this isn’t really one cause. Abortion and euthanasia are both two sides of the same coin. They are human rights issues. Furthermore, when you add in embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, they are all violations of the sanctity of human life. If humans who cannot defend themselves do not have a right to life, or their right is not protected, then what message is society projecting? All other rights, privileges, issues are meaningless if we are not willing to fight for the sick and weak.

It is hypocritical for a society to urge the elimination of the death penalty, demand help for the poor, etc; yet allow the elimination and execution of helpless humans.

Ethical public policy is useless if government and society isn’t moral.

1. If this mandate is so clear, why hasn’t it been expressed clearly in official Church teaching?

first) because (according to Archbishop Sample) the documents assume proper understanding of Catholic Moral Theology and Catholic moral teaching regarding the corporation with evil. The USCCB document is very clear once you understand that each category trumps the categories below it. Human Life issues is category number one and trumps all other issues. For example, what good is it if we have a healthy economy if 50% of society is going to hell? (Note: I’m not implying that 50% of people are going to help, I’m not God. I’m simply using that to illustrate my point).

The document from the USCCB has 4 categories. Human Life Issues, Family Life Issues, Social Justice issues, and Global Solidarity issues. All human life issues outweigh the other 3 categories. All family life issues out weigh social justice and global solidarity issues. And social justice out weighs global solidarity.

Catholics are called to use there judgement within these categories, but using the concept of “the lesser of two evils.” So let’s assume there is a pro choice candidate, who personally doesn’t agree with abortion, running against a “pro life” candidate who want to increase the number of crimes punishable by death. Well in that instance, the “pro life” candidate really isn’t pro life. They are just against abortion, but still part of the culture of death. So voting for the pro choice candidate would be ok. HOWEVER, how realistic is this senecio in today’s political climate?

Now, let’s assume that you have a candidate who is pro choice who wants to eliminate limits on abortion, yet wants to eliminate the death penalty. That candidate is running against a pro life candidate who is not in favor of curtailing the death penalty. Which one should you vote for? Well, you need to use the concept of lesser of two evils. Is it more evil to kill innocent babies or kill dangerous criminals? Both are evil acts, but which is less evil? To me, killing the dangerous criminals is the lesser evil. So I vote against the pro choice candidate.

Since the categories are stacked, the pro life canidate’s position on social justice and global solidarity issues is meaning less because had to be made in the Human Rights issue.

I don’t get to vote based on Social Justice issues until both candidates are good on Human Life and Family Life issues. And I can’t vote based on global solidarity until all candidates are good on the Human life, Family life and social justice.

Second) the documents written by the Vatican are written to deal with all nations and peoples, with different issues. And the USCCB document is written in an way that protects it from being blatantly against one party and two to work for voting at all levels of government. For example, in the rural parts of the country, there are plenty of pro life democrats running for office. The doc is also written to accommodate issues like the extreme example I created regarding the candidate who wants to expand usage of the death penalty.

Finally, why are you so much more concerned with American founding fathers documents than with Catholic Church documents? You cannot support a Catholic religious claim by citing secular documents.

I’m not more concerned with American founding fathers. I’m much more concerned with Church Fathers and church docs. As far as citing secular documents to support Catholic morality, of course I can. The United States was founded with the notion that the Constitution would only work as long as our understanding of law and ethics was grounded in the natural moral law.

Both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who were not religious, strongly believed that the Constitution and nation would fail if not interpreted using Judeo-Christian morality.

Truth is Truth, regardless if it comes from the Church or secular sources. It’s a simple truth that the American founding fathers understood that the Right to Life was the most important inalienable right and out weighted the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

God Bless.

 

[Rau]

That is irrelevant. The gist of my argument is that legislating morality is not required in Catholicism, nor does it bring about the public good. Behavior is better changed through evangelization.

I also have no need to see Christian morality legislated. You believe abortion ought to be available (morally & legally) to avoid women being victimised. I am pointing out that it is absurd to deem carrying one’s own child to term in comfortable circumstances “victimisation”. It may as well be deemed to be victimisation to have to repay a debt!

Well, with legalization must come regulation. But there should be reasonable standards. Regarding parental permission requirements, in theory they are wise but in practice it will also lead women to seek abortion underground.

Earlier you said you do support some restrictions on abortion, but now you are “unable to say” what they are or why they are required.

You jump to conclusions. There are times when the ending of a human life is necessary, for example in war and law enforcement. We are also realizing that there are times when euthanasia may be the wisest choice. None of this means that human life is not special.

Murder and an unnatural death are not (morally speaking) the same thing. Do you believe that Murder is ever a moral choice Cali? I am not referring to self-defence or defence of others occasioning death - I am referring to the human act of murder.

Don’t you understand? As long as homosexuality is considered normal and not a disease, it is futile to insist that gay couples be denied marriage rights. We have seen that gay couples are fully capable of raising children in stable households

.Perhaps you do not understand? You were attempting to express a message that was simultaneously pro-gay marriage and in keeping with ALL of Christ’s teachings. I contend that gay sex is not in accord with Christ’s teachings and you’ve not demonstrated otherwise. This was a point of moral debate, not a matter of what is or is not “futile” in secular society.

It is futile to insist that a secular government (“the world”) conform to Christian teaching. Why? Because the world does not believe.

I do not insist on any such thing. But (unlike you) I am able to debate what is moral quite independently from the matter of what our laws should be. Eg. “Gay sex is immoral” AND “I do not see merit in a law against gay sex.” AND “I have no objection to legal structures enabling asset sharing and mutual care between or among arbitrary persons”.

How does Jeremiah 1:5 have anything on point to do with abortion? Pray tell.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” So Cali, do you think God refers to a lump of cells, like a tumour perhaps? Or is he referring to a human person, made in his image?

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that when a woman commits the act of abortion, it is unclear whether at that moment, she has a criminal intent in her mind. In the law, all crimes require a state of mind (“mens rea”) and a corresponding act (“actus reus”). In the case of an abortion, what is the woman’s mens rea as she commits the act?

Yet again, you go off-track. This point is about the morality of the act, not the legality of the act!

Cali - you must separate in your mind your moral position from what you think ought to be the law. You repeatedly respond to a point of morality by reference to secular matters and the law, rather than just addressing the question of morality. Clearly you are not settled on the moral principles yet, and you constantly muddle them up with legal issues. You called abortion an evil trade, but insisted that to deny it to a woman is to victimise her (no matter her circumstances or motivation to abort).

IF abortion is morally fine, then there is nothing to debate in so far as restricting the right to abortion - there would be little reason to do so. There is only a debate because a large number of people know it is an evil. For Catholics, it is always wrong. For the Jews it is OK for a very short time after conception, then wrong in all but certain extreme cases. Etc. Hardly anyone views it as simply a medical procedure, like an appendectomy.

You asked the following in your opening post:
CaliLobo in Post #1:

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?

But this again is to fail to acknowledge that morality exists quite apart from the Law. The Church can only teach what it knows to be moral truth. The Church wants to see the slaughter of the unborn end, and it believes that that requires those who are likeminded to have likeminded representatives in the legislature (a reasonable and democratic view). What actual measures might (subject to community support) be progressed toward the end of reducing the evil of abortion is open to debate and not prescribed by the Church (as far as I know). Possibly, laws opposed to abortion “for convenience” might be passed and the Church would likely support them and seek to offer pastoral care to those in need. But why would the Church come out and say “hey, we’re perfectly fine with abortion in case of abuse”? The law remains OK with abortion in that case and there is no reason for the Church to be expected to change its moral teaching to agree.

So, what about the moral position Cali? Is abortion ever a moral act? When? Is it ever an immoral act? When? What do you believe in terms of morality?

 

[CaliLobo]

Rau:

I also have no need to see Christian morality legislated…

We can go on and on. But let’s go back to the title of this thread. Despite your desire to debate the moral issue, my thread is primarily about the political issue. If you say that you have no need to see Christian morality legislated, are you in effect agreeing with me that there is nothing in Catholic teaching that requires Catholic people to oppose abortion politically (although there may for some people be a moral impetus to)?

In other words, do you agree that there are times when we have to separate what we believe morally from what is best politically? Do you agree that there is nothing in Catholic teaching that forbids this?

 

[Rau]

We can go on and on. But let’s go back to the title of this thread. Despite your desire to debate the moral issue, my thread is primarily about the political issue. If you say that you have no need to see Christian morality legislated, are you in effect agreeing with me that there is nothing in Catholic teaching that requires Catholic people to oppose abortion politically (although there may for some people be a moral impetus to)?

We must work to see evil reduced - whether for some that is via prayer, or political agitation or thought leadership or some other means is up to the talents of the individuals concerned. I am certain that the evil won’t be reduced by the Catholic Church agreeing to your exhortation to change its teaching on what is moral and what is not.

The Church does not make “law” - it teaches faith and morality. How can you suggest that the Church should not advocate for the lessening of State sanctioned mass murder? **How that can be achieved should be the focus of debate, not our democratic and moral right to seek it. **

In other words, do you agree that there are times when we have to separate what we believe morally from what is best politically? Do you agree that there is nothing in Catholic teaching that forbids this?

I have no difficulty whatsoever saying:
“Abortion is immoral”. AND “I am uncertain what legal and social framework ought to be pursued to lessen the evil of abortion”.

But you want to go much further than that and have the Church actually positively endorse abortion in nominated circumstances. You wrote:
CaliLobo in Post #1:

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?

This is an absurd statement. First, the Church cannot change a moral Truth. And second, how on earth do you imagine that “allowing” abortions in these relatively few extreme cases would magically eliminate or “reduce most abortions”? Do you think people abort babies (in circumstances other than the above) just to “spite” the Church?

Cali - figure out where you stand morally. Then turn your mind to the legal and social framework that ought to be pursued to lessen the evil of abortion.

 

[CaliLobo]

We must work to see evil reduced - whether for some that is via prayer, or political agitation or thought leadership or some other means is up to the talents of the individuals concerned. I am certain that the evil won’t be reduced by the Catholic Church agreeing to your exhortation to change its teaching on what is moral and what is not.

The Church does not make “law” - it teaches faith and morality. How can you suggest that the Church should not advocate for the lessening of State sanctioned mass murder? How that can be achieved should be the focus of debate, not our democratic and moral right to seek it.

**I have no difficulty whatsoever saying:
“Abortion is immoral”. AND “I am uncertain what legal and social framework ought to be pursued to lessen the evil of abortion”.
**
But you want to go much further than that…

I no longer am advocating that the Catholic Church change.

However Rau,** I am relieved that we agree that there are no political mandates for Catholics**, and that “Catholic social teaching” provides a framework for thinking but leaves open the answers.

**Perhaps the door to Catholicism is open to me after all. ** It is something I prayed for.

And we no longer have to call the majority of Catholics who support abortion and SSM “cradle Catholics” because of their political views.

Because we live in a secular government, people have the right to abort their children, and date someone of the same sex. It is not the province of a secular government to regulate these things by denying these civil rights. Why? Because a secular government has no **moral **basis for doing so. So yes, the moral does intersect with the political after all; it’s just that a secular government has no moral basis.

As long as pregnancy is considered suffering, and abortion is considered a women’s right, it cannot be restricted fully. As long as homosexuality is considered normal and not a disease, gay marriages cannot be restricted. That is the reality.

If Christians want to change these people’s behavior, it needs to be through evangelism, and actually living out the Gospel.

Now that this thread is resolved, would the people that posted in my previous thread admit that they were wrong, and that it is possible to join the Catholic Church and support abortion and gay marriage rights?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=866341

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now that this thread is resolved, would the people that posted in my previous thread admit that they were wrong, and that it is possible to join the Catholic Church and support abortion and gay marriage rights?

I am one of the people whose posting you latched onto to support your point, but even I cannot agree with with last formulation of your position. There is a big difference between supporting abortion rights and declining to cast your vote for someone just because he says he is pro-life. There is a political anti-abortion mandate in Catholic teaching. It is that we may never promote or support abortion. That much is clear. There may be some debate over what we may allow as an unintended consequence of some unrelated position. But when comes to explicitly supporting abortion because we intend to, no, a Catholic may not do that.