Why almost half the Catholics not prolife?

[billsherman]

Aside from their comment on abortion, the rest of their statements involve judgments, not moral truths.

No. That is where you are wrong. Their right to make moral pronouncements on all issues is certain. They can, and have, unequivocally stated that the dignity of human life MUST be respected from conception to natural death. You don’t have the authority to declare their pronouncement to be “prudential.” It isn’t. It is moral. It was always moral, and it always will be.

Just because you don’t think all human life has dignity from conception to natural death, doesn’t mean the Bishops are wrong. It means you’re wrong. It has to. Otherwise the Church has no moral authority at all.

Catholicism isn’t a buffet. You take all of it, not just the parts with which you agree. It’s hard, I get it. It’s much, MUCH easier to just have political opinions that a rooted in nothing more than loyalty to some ever changing ideology. Being pro-life demands more than just loyalty to a political party, it demands loyalty to life. All life.

I think you’ve proven the seriousness of your belief that only SOME life is worthy of dignity. I get where you’re coming from, but it isn’t a Catholic position.

 

[Walk-worthy]

1. In prioritizing a list of items, only one thing can be primary. True or false?
   I would say False. Two items could be co-equal in terms of its priority.
2. Can whatever is primary become subordinate to what is secondary?
   Yes. Stuff happens!
3. If two people come to opposite conclusions about which political solution is best, can either decision be considered immoral?
   That depends on what the solution is. ex. Legalized euthanasia (Terri Sheivo sp?) is immoral
4. If one disagrees with a bishop on the best solution to a political issue is that sinful?
   Are you serious? Many Bishops that I know are flaming leftists and, unfortunately for them, they all will have to confront God on judgement day! No it’s not a sin!

 

[Ender]

They can, and have, unequivocally stated that the dignity of human life MUST be respected from conception to natural death. You don’t have the authority to declare their pronouncement to be “prudential.”

I made no comment whatever on this. You simply assumed this from my statements about other things. None of this pertains to anything I actually said. Limit your responses to my actual comments; perhaps you will understand me better.

 

[SeekSalvation]

My bare minimum definition of what it means to be pro-life is someone who opposes:

Abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

I’m not sure about capital punishment, although, I am opposed to it and would support banning it nationally.

Anyway, this definition leaves plenty of room for people folks of a variety of ideological persuasions to call themselves pro-life. Adding more to it just makes the movement increasingly exclusive and, as a consequence, gives it less power to oppose these crimes against the right to life.

Although our Pope is against the death penalty, Catholic Cannon Law and Mosaic Law is not. It is permissible in the Church to believe or not to believe in the death penalty.

 

[billsherman]

I made no comment whatever on this.

You support the death penalty, in opposition to Church teaching. Very loudly. I’m not sure why I should ignore that. It’s material to any discussion about life issues.

It goes to the heart of how you pick and choose which moral pronouncements from the Bishops are binding on you, and the ones you think can ignore, i.e. it’s moral if you agree with it, but it’s prudential if you don’t.

We can probably stop going back and forth now. We’re just repeating ourselves. You think abortion is the only life issue that the Church can speak about morally, and the Bishops disagree.

 

[Ender]

In prioritizing a list of items, only one thing can be primary. True or false?
I would say False. Two items could be co-equal in terms of its priority.

Two things may indeed be co-equal, but then it wouldn’t make sense to label one of them primary.

Can whatever is primary become subordinate to what is secondary?
Yes. Stuff happens!

Then it wouldn’t be simply primary, but conditionally primary. Again, this is a different question.

If two people come to opposite conclusions about which political solution is best, can either decision be considered immoral?
That depends on what the solution is. ex. Legalized euthanasia (Terri Sheivo sp?) is immoral

I tried to anticipate this objection by specifying “political solution”, that is, one that does not involve actions that are intrinsically evil.

If one disagrees with a bishop on the best solution to a political issue is that sinful?
Are you serious? Many Bishops that I know are flaming leftists and, unfortunately for them, they all will have to confront God on judgement day! No it’s not a sin!

Yes, well I agree with you, but this was a point I was trying to get billsherman to address.

 

[Ender]

You support the death penalty, in opposition to Church teaching. Very loudly. I’m not sure why I should ignore that. It’s material to any discussion about life issues.

I have made no comment on the death penalty on this thread. My comments on that topic on other threads are not relevant to my comments on an entirely different topic on this thread. I have carefully avoided commenting on it here so as not to hijack the topic.

It goes to the heart of how you pick and choose which moral pronouncements from the Bishops are binding on you, and the ones you think can ignore, i.e. it’s moral if you agree with it, but it’s prudential if you don’t.

You just don’t seem able to discuss issues. Your responses are all about judging me. Let me be clear: the bishops prudential judgments about political issues are not moral pronouncements.

You think abortion is the only life issue that the Church can speak about morally, and the Bishops disagree.

Again, this is pure invention on your part; I have never made such an assertion. If you cited a specific comment, and limited your response to what I actually said the irrelevance of your rejoinders might be evident even to you.

 

[Ender]

Can whatever is primary become subordinate to what is secondary?

Then it wouldn’t be simply primary, but conditionally primary. Again, this is a different question.

My response here was too brief. Let’s take the question in the context of the topic: is abortion the primary moral issue of our day, and can it become secondary to other moral issues of our day? Clearly there can arise emergency situations that reorient normal priorities. The COVID-19 emergency might just be such an example, but the bishops’ statement wasn’t made in that context.

Their statement was included in the “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” document they put out every four years prior to a presidential election. In it they asserted both that abortion is the “preeminent priority”, and “at the same time” there are other issues to consider. So what are we to make of that? If abortion is indeed preeminent then the fact that there are other significant issues still doesn’t outweigh our obligation to deal with abortion first.

If, however, we deem the other issues more important collectively, then in what sense does it matter that abortion is preeminent if we are freed from our responsibility to respond to it first? This is why I complained that the bishops’ letter provides no guidance: one can as easily justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate as for one who opposes it.

What is the significance of labeling abortion preeminent if we have no obligation to act as if the distinction mattered?

 

[Walk-worthy]

What! The death penalty isn’t in opposition to Catholic teaching! Where did you get that from? The church throughout it’s history has regarded capital punishment as justified punishment against criminals.

 

[Walk-worthy]

I also think abortion is the only life issue that the Church must speak about morally!
I rank abortion above hunger, poverty, climate change, inequality, globalism, gender-isms, and anything else that’s circling around the neo-catholic modernist thought!

WW

 

[Walk-worthy]

Hmmmmm, interesting point. Co equal vs primary. Well I would agree I guess, but isn’t this semantics? We need both air and water to sustain life, which is more primary? For the believer, salvation can only come from faith in Christ. Outside of Christ there is no salvation. Christ is primary no co-equal variables.

 

[Diaconia]

Our Holy Father, Francis, has said capital punishment is contrary to the Gospel.

The late great Pope St. John Paul II said it was no longer needed in modern society where criminals can be kept securely away from the public.

All persons deserve the right to repent, even murderers. Alessandro Serenelli was the young man who murdered St. Maria Goretti. After being released from prison he became a lay Franciscan (Capuchin) brother.

Every life is sacred, every one in the womb, and every person God creates. Catholics should work tirelessly to protect the unborn, the vulnerable, the elderly, and those on death row.

Our Pope is wise; and those who listen to him are as well.

A sinner I remain,
Deacon Christopher

 

[Walk-worthy]

I don’t want to offend you or our Holy Father, but the death penalty is not . . . an intrinsic moral evil, and thus it necessarily can’t always and everywhere be . . . contrary to the Gospel. . . . The next Pope will no doubt have a different view. . . .

 

[Diaconia]

The Holy Father does not teach a new-age theology nor does he think that consequences don’t matter.

“Capital punishment is contrary to the Gospel,” is not just his personal opinion; it is teaching for the whole of the people of God.

Deacon Christopher

 

[Walk-worthy]

I’m not sure if you are opposed to this or in favor of it. You write very long explanations and I get confused about your points. But one explicit point that I think needs rebuking is this: there is never justification to support a pro abortion political candidate. This is akin to casting your lot among thieves and vipers. This has been the predominant problem among Catholics for decades. I won’t name names, you know them, but several in Congress should be excommunicated, but they’re given a pass! Why is that!

 

[Walk-worthy]

Really? I think you are not seeing the whole picture! . . .

 

[Walk-worthy]

Look, I’m not out to cause you pain here. You are a solid follower in the faith, I’m sure! Maybe I just see what’s going on from a different perspective and I’m worried. Very worried that things are not going so well in Rome and around the world.

 

[Diaconia]

Perhaps your perspective is in error.

Do you think that you have greater theological insight than that of Francis or JPII?

All human life is sacred, all should be protected.

I pray your Easter Week is filled with joy,
Deacon Christopher

 

[Walk-worthy]

No, I don’t think I have greater insight.
I completely agree with you that all life is sacred and should be protected! I truly do!
My point is; the death penalty is not a violation of the above principal. In fact, the death penalty upholds the above principal and places value on life because it causes people with evil on their hearts to consider the things that are good and choose good over evil!

To twist this principal and distort it is dangerous. Besides, you simply can’t erase 2000 years of church teaching to suit a new current belief, Deacon Chris.

 

[billsherman]

All human life is sacred, all should be protected.

This very apt quote, reminds me of one of my favorite Jewish theologians, Rabbi Abraham Heschel. He wrote: “A test of a people is how it behaves toward the old. It is easy to love children. Even tyrants and dictators make a point of being fond of children. But the affection and care for the old, the incurable, the helpless are the true gold mines of a culture.”

The Bishops are wise. They ought to be appreciated, followed, and listened to - especially when they say things that challenge us.