Why almost half the Catholics not prolife?

[Ender]

The death penalty isn’t in opposition to Catholic teaching!

I agree, but the topic will take over the thread if we argue it here. I will be more than happy to participate in any discussion opened specifically on that topic.

I also think abortion is the only life issue that the Church must speak about morally!

Any issue that deals with intrinsic evil is a moral issue about which the church should engage. Euthanasia, for example. This assuredly does not include issues which allow for legitimate disagreement, such as immigration.

But one explicit point that I think needs rebuking is this: there is never justification to support a pro abortion political candidate.

There can always be exceptions to general rules. Obviously if the only two viable candidates support abortion it would be justifiable to choose one over the other. The problem is, expressing this truism as they have the bishops have made it fairly simple for each individual to find his own exceptions that justify his choice of the pro-abortion candidate even if the alternative candidate opposes it.

 

[Walk-worthy]

I don’t disagree with that! Good post Bill.

 

[Walk-worthy]

I’m having my coffee and thought I would respond. I have to watch what I say, I apparently upset the comment police! I don’t think I’m agitating, but some on here think so. I’m a traditional, conservative Catholic and I can see the walls closing in. I feel like St John the Baptist at times, crying out in the wilderness, praying that people will wake up! Good post Ender!

Take the death penalty for instance. Many Catholics today think it’s against Church teaching! It’s not! These are paradigm shifts! If I disagree, I’m labeled! How are believers able to fight back against these paradigm shifts?

 

[Ender]

I’ve read all your posts and can’t imagine what set someone off, but it isn’t stating your opinion on capital punishment. Yours is a position I have defended on this site for over a decade, and while some individuals become quite agitated over the issue, that alone won’t get you into trouble with the moderators.

Regarding capital punishment and the issue of being pro-life, it has always seemed to me to be little more than a convenient justification for dismissing someone else’s credentials for being pro-life on a significant issue such as abortion. Suppose one person opposes abortion and supports capital punishment, while another person holds the opposite views. If they are treated as equally pro-life (or not pro-life) then the true nature of intrinsically evil acts is lost.

The bishops’ “Faithful Citizenship” document starts by effectively condemning this equivalence:

1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity.
2. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity.

Then in the next sentence they go on to confuse the very distinction they just insisted on.

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.

The problem is the “other threats” they refer to include concerns that are not moral issues in that they involve prudential judgments, and not moral choices. On the one hand we are told moral distinctions are necessary, but on the other we are informed we don’t need to let them take precedence over our own judgments and opinions about how practical problems should be resolved.

Then why bother with the moral distinctions?

 

[signit]

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.

I agree with the idea (sanctity of life) but not the actual factual situation.

I don’t agree that today in the United States “criminals can be kept securely away from the public.”

I posted in post #127 the recent news story about two dangerous inmates who escaped a maximum security prison.

And also, “life in prison” might not actually mean “life.” When capital punishment was defeated in the Massachusetts legislature in the 1990s, one of the arguments against it was that there was already life without parole. But, there was a movement last year to abolish life without parole and make it retroactive.

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.

Sure, but we have to make a choice somewhere.

That person who tortured and murdered an entire family and never expressed any remorse might suddenly see the light and become a great Catholic and great role model for Catholics.

On the other hand, that person might kill again.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

You keep doing the racist angle, but again this particular president is not known for his adherence towards Civil Rights. Again, if his supporters are honest and are voting for him based on bringing back manufacturing, energy, and reducing to eliminating immigration then that’s fine; those are all political issues. But I as a religious man who does not think his policies are feasible or agree with the full extent of other policies, don’t feel compelled to vote for this man simply because he is Pro-Life.

I’m not a one issue voter. Again, I and Catholic like myself may not like abortion but we don’t see it as the imperative moment or calling of our nation. As if by eliminating abortion anything great in this country would be resolved such as people being employed and the middle class growing or thriving.

Again, Trump will likely win re-election and I hope his supporters get what they are promised. I’m not going to be part of his movement. I don’t condemn his supporters, I feel the Democrats, in particular Hillary, who I do not vote for, don’t quite have a solution for them. So, again, I’m glad the GOP is starting to address working class rights in Economic Policy. Again, I don’t think they have the right leader to pull it off, but maybe one day they or the Democrats will.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

No, I don’t support abortion. I know I’m not part of the problem contributing to the very personal decision a woman may make to have an abortion. The reason it is called Pro-choice and not Pro-abortion, is to distinguish those cases where you don’t support abortion but are aware that you cannot speak for everyone else.

Again, America is a secular society with religious people of all denominations in it. This may sound cliche, but as a man I do feel a woman has a right to choose. Again, this is a moral decision based on her religious views and upbringings. I’m not going to be the nanny state telling her what to do with her body. Again, I don’t support abortion; I would rather people made better decisions, I would want all people to have religious values. The reality is that is not so.

Again, I’m not voting for Trump because he is Pro-life. I don’t condemn his supporters, many of who are atheist and libertarian, for voting based on his Economic and Immigration policies. I hope that there lives are better now than four years ago and if Trump win election again, I hope their lives are better still. Again, I am not a stakeholder in this election; my life is fine and there is nothing Trump or the government can do to ruin my life or make my life better. But once again, given the weight of the president’s history, his policies, and international relations, I’m not voting for the guy or being part of his movement. Again, although he is Pro-life. There are other countervailing issues that can really effect many Americans, other than one issue.

 

[Ender]

No, I don’t support abortion. I know I’m not part of the problem contributing to the very personal decision a woman may make to have an abortion. The reason it is called Pro-choice and not Pro-abortion, is to distinguish those cases where you don’t support abortion but are aware that you cannot speak for everyone else.

It is difficult to respond to this argument without becoming really insulting, but it is also difficult to comprehend how someone can take it seriously. At a superficial level it might seem open minded and non-judgmental, but it is in fact an evasion of ones responsibility to make a considered moral judgment.

For some acts such a position might not be unreasonable. Perhaps such things as carrying a concealed weapon, watching pornography, going to monster truck rallies, but for other actions such a position is an abdication of our obligation to distinguish right from wrong by supporting the former and opposing the latter.

If you think there is nothing wrong with abortion then say so; take a stand. Don’t sidestep the issue.

 

[redbetta]

I was not talking about Trump as all in this thread, I was asking a more general question on whether or not you would oppose the killing of a particular ethnic group considered non-human and, if so, what makes that any different if that particular class is unborn?

So far, you have not said anything in this discussion that indicates you honestly believe abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. In fact, it seems quite the opposite by saying you merely don’t like abortion. Saying you don’t like abortion is like saying you don’t like pedophilia. It isn’t a matter of personal taste.

 

[upant]

I’m not a one issue voter. Again, I and Catholic like myself may not like abortion but we don’t see it as the imperative moment or calling of our nation.

how do you defend the rest of the Democrats’ anti-catholic policies? it isn’t just abortion. reconcile for me the liberal promoted hedonistic lifestyle with church teaching. reconcile for me how euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, transgenderism, etc. is in accord with church teaching? what issue is more important than these? Social issues that haven’t worked and are destroying the family unit? the welfare system has caused a decline in the number of fathers in homes. is the destruction of the family unit worth any supposed benefit of welfare or should welfare be changed to encourage fathers to stay in the home?

Father Epicoco also noted how often Pope Francis speaks of evil, and he asked Pope Francis where he sees evil at work today.

“One place is ‘gender theory,’” the pope said. “Right away I want to clarify that I am not referring to people with a homosexual orientation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church invites us to accompany them and provide pastoral care to these brothers and sisters of ours.”

Gender theory, he said, has a “dangerous” cultural aim of erasing all distinctions between men and women, male and female, which would “destroy at its roots” God’s most basic plan for human beings: “diversity, distinction. It would make everything homogenous, neutral. It is an attack on difference, on the creativity of God and on men and women.”

Pope Francis said he did not want “to discriminate against anyone,” but was convinced that human peace and well-being had to be based on the reality that God created people with differences and that accepting – not ignoring – those differences is what brings people together. (CNS News)

The reason it is called Pro-choice and not Pro-abortion, is to distinguish those cases where you don’t support abortion but are aware that you cannot speak for everyone else.

it is marketing to make anti-abortion people support abortion. something can’t be morally right for one and morally wrong for another

abortion is wrong, period!

Again, this is a moral decision based on her religious views and upbringings

when can having an abortion be morally okay? what does the church have to say on this?

Again, I am not a stakeholder in this election; my life is fine and there is nothing Trump or the government can do to ruin my life or make my life better.

what about the souls that may be lost due to the policies of the democrats? are these souls worth anything? isn’t getting to heaven more important than a disagreement on how to handle social ills? We all have a stake in this election if we want to save souls.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

Well, we are never going to agree on this issue. I wouldn’t own a fire arm and I don’t watch porn. All I can write is to be authentic in voting for Trump a response would have to be based on political arguments. I see no moral imperative to vote for Trump. Again, I’m not trying to be open minded or closed minded, I’m being authentic to my place in the world and my responsibility to society in circumstances that do not pertain to me.

Again, I’m not a stakeholder. OP, asked a question and my response is still the same one can be a good Catholic, not live a life of sin, and still vote for political figures who are pro choice. Especially, in this age where my decision we’re I to base it on pro life would mean voting for a person I don’t think is beneficial in the political realm of things. Again, I don’t condemn his supporters and their political motives as they are in need. I just don’t think Trump can fulfill, but only time will tell. So long as we don’t go to war, I’m not a stakeholder.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

Your arguments are hollow. It’s illogical. All I keep hearing from you to be blunt, is , “you like brown, black, yellow and red folk but you don’t like babies what a hypocrite.” That’s not an argument, it’s a weird way of demonizing someone that ironically sounds if not racist ethnocentric.

Then you bring in pedophilia, and I cringe at thought but to blunt all you are saying is, “come on, man, you’re not pro life so of course you support pedophilia.” Again, not an argument and rather inappropriate. Again OP asked how a practicing Catholic can not live a life of sin and be pro choice. I answered with, when you live in America and where there is separation of Church and State, your vote is not based on one issue you have no control over but rather the Economic and Political considerations that come with that vote.

Again, if your choice to vote for Trump are political and economic. OK, that is authentic. We may not agree on that, but still I understand. But there is no moral imperative to vote for Trump. This isn’t Divine Right of Kings or Anglicanism, where the president is leader of my a Church.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

I can tell you are a very good and Holy man and I highly respect you. Everyone else I have responded to I feel have been inauthentic and are pushing an agenda, but you are authentic and a good man. So, I’ll reply candidly with you why I take the position I do.

I’m not certain your age, but at thirty-eight I remember Bill Clinton reigning in Federal Welfare with the Federal Welfare Act. His concern at the time was inter-generational welfare recipients, so he essentially eliminated Federal Welfare. Here is a link to that:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 | ASPE

So, again, traditionally Democrats were notable not for Welfare (as is discussed now in talk radio) but for working with Unions and the Working Class. I feel Obama was of that vain and I did vote for him twice. I’m proud of my vote as the 2008 recession was big, major and through Fiscal Policy and the way it was administered, Obama and the Republicans saved the Banking Industry, the Automotive Industry, and some manufacturing.

But, what I see right now is a decline in the country. I see two America’s, the America that is making it off of globalization and the America that is losing to globalization. Now, I don’t take the Democrats off the hook it is yet to be shown whether Biden will have a platform addressing the issue or at least recognizing the issue. I can go deeper into that but I’ll leave it at that. Once again, if Biden doesn’t have a platform much like Hillary didn’t have a platform I will vote State and Local.

But again, looking at the realities of things I don’t find Trump’s plans or policies feasible or beneficial. Again, I am not certain how these last years have turned our for Trump Supporters. I know we are now in the middle of a recession. Again, Trump may be elected again but it will be because he acknowledges the issue of outsourcing and oversees manufacturing along with energy policies that once sustained communities although bad for the environment. I just don’t think he has a solution. Again, isolationism in a globalized world may cause long-term problems. But again, I see a country in decline who may not have the political leadership to revitalize it. Only time will tell.

Now, here is where I will get real candid because you are a religious man. I’m sorry if this sounds conspiratorial, but I almost see Trump as the forerunner to the antichrist. I really mean that. He’s not particularly religious has sinned in life, lives a very hedonistic lifestyle but through his charm is able to court a large portion of people who are able to look past his sin even though they are otherwise religious. So, I’m dreadfully afraid to vote for him. And that’s the truth. Others look at the Pro-life and Pro-choice issue very theoretically. No, we have to be honest we are talking about voting for Trump in the next election and whether there is a religious mandate to vote for him. To me that sounds conniving and a move only an antichrist type figure would make.

 

[redbetta]

Are you even listening to yourself? If anyone is making illogical arguments in this thread, it is you. You have not responded to my arguments, you have only responded to caricatures of my arguments and assigning motives to me. I’m not the one who keeps bringing up Trump and I’m not trying to convince you to vote for him.

As for pedophilia, I was responding to you saying you merely dislike abortion, as if it were a matter of personal taste. Some things in life are just morally wrong and should be opposed regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. Someone may “like” little kids very, very much, but I’m not just going to let them have at it because it would be imposing my beliefs on them.

Like it or not, every law we have is an imposition on someone else.

 

[TheAntitheist]

Greetings,

I think it is a mistake to conflate the notions of religious “adherence” with belief. For instance, while most “Catholics” are pro-abortion, I, an “antitheist” am (in most cases) pro-life, because I have heard the arguments from BOTH sides, and have determined for myself what is morally correct (pro-life). I think if you gave most people 30 minutes, you could also convince them that the notion of value in human life is inconsistent with the notion of abortion in most circumstances.

Peace,

The Antitheist

 

[upant]

I’ll reply candidly with you why I take the position I do.

we are at an impasse, so thank you for the discussion.
until the next thread, good day and God Bless

 

[JSRG]

No, I don’t support abortion. I know I’m not part of the problem contributing to the very personal decision a woman may make to have an abortion. The reason it is called Pro-choice and not Pro-abortion, is to distinguish those cases where you don’t support abortion but are aware that you cannot speak for everyone else.

Again, America is a secular society with religious people of all denominations in it. This may sound cliche, but as a man I do feel a woman has a right to choose. Again, this is a moral decision based on her religious views and upbringings. I’m not going to be the nanny state telling her what to do with her body. Again, I don’t support abortion; I would rather people made better decisions, I would want all people to have religious values. The reality is that is not so.

Again, I’m not voting for Trump because he is Pro-life. I don’t condemn his supporters, many of who are atheist and libertarian, for voting based on his Economic and Immigration policies. I hope that there lives are better now than four years ago and if Trump win election again, I hope their lives are better still. Again, I am not a stakeholder in this election; my life is fine and there is nothing Trump or the government can do to ruin my life or make my life better. But once again, given the weight of the president’s history, his policies, and international relations, I’m not voting for the guy or being part of his movement. Again, although he is Pro-life. There are other countervailing issues that can really effect many Americans, other than one issue.

Have you considered Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party?

 

[Ender]

Well, we are never going to agree on this issue. I wouldn’t own a fire arm and I don’t watch porn. All I can write is to be authentic in voting for Trump a response would have to be based on political arguments.

It is obviously true that the practical options this year are voting for Trump or for whomever the Democrats nominate. That said, I didn’t ask which one you would choose. I responded to the argument you made to justify your support of (a candidate who supports) abortion. That is a moral concern, not a specifically political one.

I think, though, that most Catholics who support the abortion candidate do so for the same reason you do: their concern for the plethora of other political issues takes precedence in their minds over abortion. And, like you, they don’t really see this as a moral choice, or, rather they see the moral choice as being the one that to them is most beneficial to the country in general.

Thus resisting the moral evil of abortion becomes a secondary concern, and abortion itself is reduced in significance. No one would make the argument you made and allow someone to choose a truly evil act. It is only by believing that abortion is not all that bad can one conceivably suggest that it be permitted as a personal choice. It is only by deceiving yourself about the truly evil nature of abortion that you can take that position.

Would you still support the Democrat if he advocated for a “Purge Night” where for one night a year murder was “a personal choice”, or would even that not tip the scale to the Republican?

 

[Ender]

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

Can you cite where Francis said “capital punishment is contrary to the Gospel”? I ask because it seems problematic; I know that’s not what the change to the catechism says. It would seem to be a serious problem to have something forbidden in the New Testament that was commanded in the Old.

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.

First, a judgment of what is or is not needed is just that: a judgment, an opinion. It is not a doctrine and we are not obliged to agree with it. Second, if your first statement is accurate then the position JPII expressed has been repudiated. If capital punishment is contrary to the gospel then it doesn’t matter whether criminals can be secured against society or not, and JPII would have been wrong to have acknowledged any exception.

All persons deserve the right to repent, even murderers.

Capital punishment does not deprive them of that right, nor does that possibility preclude its use.

“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death." (Aquinas SCG Bk III, ch 147)

 

[Walk-worthy]

Then why bother with the moral distinctions?

These are interesting times! I agree completely!
Keep the faith friend!