John Kerry, Abortion and Politics

so what's a pro-life liberal voter to do? (yes, there are such political creatures out there). do i hold my nose and vote for bush... or kerry?

so what's a pro-life liberal voter to do? (yes, there are such political creatures out there). do i hold my nose and vote for bush... or kerry?

What we'd like to know is how does Kerry stay in good faith with the Catholic church with his open beliefs on abortion. He is also in the knights of columbus (a mens organization in the catholic church, I understand he's a 4th degree)why do they still carry him on the books with his open beliefs????

S Warner,
That's a great question. There's two issues here. First, it's clearly in Kerry's best interest to pretend to be Catholic (in order to get votes), even though he doesn't really believe what the Church teaches (abortion isn't the only issue).

But the second issue is why doesn't the Church do something about it. Right now, some Bishops are forbidding Kerry to accept communion in their diocese, which I think is very appropriate. But the Bishops could excommunicate Kerry from the Church. The problem is that if you excommunicate someone you often hurt others who are trying to seek Christ but also believe in Kerry. We know from Jesus that in the end, the "weeds" will be pulled from the wheat, but they will also uproot some of the wheat. I think the Bishops are attempting to resolve the issue without taking it that far - their sole goal is to save as many souls as possible. We'll see, however, how far it goes if Kerry continues suggesting the Church has no right to tell him what to do.

God bless,
Jay

I think a lot of Catholic politicians want to have it both ways. Both republican and democratic politicians play this game. But the fact is what should the litmus test be for Catholic politicians? IS abortion the only test, or should it be other things as well. How we treat the poor, the death penalty, and of course, divorce. Frankly I'm not sure, but I do notice a pattern that I find very disturbing.

I live in NYC and saw it first hand for the 80's and the 90's. The archbishop, may he rest in peace, John O' Connor had a tendency to call out pro chioce democrats, such as Mario Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro but had nothing to say when it came to pro choice republicans like George Pataki and Rudy Guiliani.

I notice that a lot of people are now going after John Kerry, but the fundamental question is are they going after him because like Governor Schwartzagager, he is a pro choice Catholic or because he is a Democrat?

I think a lot of Catholics want to have it both ways, such as Deal Hudson, who constantly bashes Democrats, because many are out of touch with Church teachings, but failing to explain, how many Republican Catholics are just as out of touch.

My point is simply my brothers and sisters, that if you want to excommunicate John Kerry, you should also excommunicate a whole lot of Pro Choice Catholic Republicans..

Paul,
I agree with you. The key point for me is the notion of being Catholic. If you say that you are Catholic, you should conform to the moral teachings of the Church. I'm simply pointing out Kerry because he is currently running for the highest office in the US. I, likewise, have a problem with Pro-Choice Catholic Politicians no matter what political banner they try and fly under.

God bless,
Jay

I guess each person has to decide for himself what priorities he places on issues. How badly do you want a pro-life president? How badly do you want a president with different foreign policy. What you really have to decide is who would be the best choice to lead the country, not who agrees with you on every issue.

Steve,
The point is, how moral can a man be if he claims to espouse a belief and then publicly flaunts it? Can he be trusted to do anything morally? If there is one thing I know about the role of a president, it demands a moral leader, not just a puppet. I think John Kerry is a puppet, rather than a leader and abortion is the issue where it is most evident. If the public viewed children murdering parents as okay, I would hope Kerry would stand up and say it's wrong. But he claims to believe that abortion is murder and yet votes to protect it. There is something gravely wrong with this picture. And because of it, I wouldn't vote for him in any election.

God bless,
Jay

What is the issue then on the death penalty? Should one be excommunicated for supporting and participating in the instruments of death used by our judicial system?

Abortion is a sin, it is morally wrong and against church teaching. So is war. So is the death penalty. So is provactive sexually oriented television and entertainment programming. So is pornography. But if a politician, following the laws of men and not the laws of the Church either defends the free speech rights of sinful entertainment, supports the expansion of the death penalty, or advocates for the use of force in a preemptive war is he or she committing a sin against God for which the Church must take notice and sanction that individual with the most powerful sanction at its disposal - the denial of participation in the eucharist?

Precious resources are wasted in attempting to change the abortion laws in this country - laws of men and not of God. The constitution is NOT a Church document and its interpretation is not and has never been guided by scripture. The repeal of Roe will not end abortion - as the masthead suggests on this page. Only day to day individual contact with those whose lives are impacted, whether through prayer, peaceful protest or outreach will end abortion - whether it is legal under the laws created by man is irrelevant. Whether a politician, Catholic or not, in reaction to those laws advocates one position over the other is also irrelevant.

Michael,
First, you can be Catholic and be for the death penalty. Remember, those on death row actually committed a crime - what crime did an unborn infant commit? I don't think these are similar issues. The key problem here is that Kerry is publicly defying God by supporting the sanctioned murder of innocent children.

You argue that "the repeal of Roe will not end abortion." A question: should we legalize homocide? After all, the fact that homocide is illegal hasn't stopped all homocides from occuring. This is a false comparison. Think about it this way: in the pre-Civil War south, is reasonable to argue that we should just try and be compassionate toward slaveowners rather than making slavery illegal? Should politicians during that era be upheld if they said, "I think slavery is wrong, but my consitutents (the ones who can vote) are for it, so I must agressively defend the practice"?

Finally, the key here is John Kerry's morality or lack thereof. If he believes that abortion is the dismemberment of children, then how could he support it no matter what his consitutents say (by the way, the majority of the US is pro-life, so if he becomes president his consitutents will be pro-life - do you think he'll change his position?). Kerry actively and agressively supports abortion. And yes, it matters to me whether our president has any moral backbone or not. It matters whether our country supports this apartheid of the unborn. And it matters to me when a so-called Catholic openly flaunts Church teaching.

The Church, by the way, is trying to save Kerry's soul by denying him communion; see 1 Cor 11:27-30.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I do not believe you can be a good Catholic and be for the death penalty. The Church teaches respect for all life, to work in and support any mechanism of death is against Church teaching. Therefore I believe it is not only a similar issue but the same issue. How do Catholic prosecutors who seek the death penalty reconcile their work with the teachings of the Church? How do Catholic legislators who expand the death penalty reconcile their actions with Church teachings? How do Catholic jurors who are asked to impose this sentence reconcile their duty as a citizen with Church teaching?

If we are going to ascertain the personal beliefs of all office seekers by their most hyperbolic rhetoric and appearances in front of specific constituencies then I have every right to call George Bush a racist, misogynist and anti-Catholic for his appearance and statements at Bob Jones University. My point, if Kerry is personally opposed to abortion why must he advocate for its illegality as opposed to working for its abolition? Yes these two are different. One can work to abolish the situations and events that lead some to abortion without supporting a criminal sanction for the performance or seeking of an abortion. That is my point on illegality - in attacking the legality of abortion we attack the symptom of deeper problems in society. Social justice issues are equally if not more important to creating a society which values life above death and therefore has no need for abortion. Furthermore, as Paul Barba notes above, this selective application of Church doctrine to Mr. Kerry smacks not of overriding concerns of Catholic teaching but of politics. And, dare I say, that Church leaders, given their recent lapses in morality in the context of crime and punishment should be loath to stick their noses into this business. I'm sorry Jay, but this entire issue smacks of rank hypocrisy to me.

I have personally suffered the loss of child through still birth. I cannot condone or sanction abortion as a practice of birth control or otherwise. And, I do not kid myself that each individual that seeks an abortion goes through painstaking self analysis and soul searching before making this terrible decision...but some do. Some are women of faith who are lost and fail to see the love and options around them. Our religion will forgive them even the sin of abortion if they seek reconciliation. But unlike homocide and slavery an abotion is in the end a choice made between the only being God has provided with the ability to bring life into this world and her conscience.

I am tired of politics mixing with religion and I am tired of the hypocrisy it brings with it. I do not take the measure of a man by a single issue but by all his actions. A culture of life demands more than agreement on the legality of abortion, it is a continuum on the way one treats and relates to his fellow human beings - all God's children. Kerry's position on abortion will not prevent this Catholic from supporting him...

May his peace be with you.

Mike

Micheal,
You can personally be against the death penalty, but the Church does not compel you to be. Here's what the Catechism states:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

In terms of abortion, John Kerry supports it in every way possible. His website states "he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court." During the pro-Abortion marches (this weekend I believe), John Kerry is taking out tv commercials that point out that only he protects "a womans right to choose." Is this "working for its abolition"? NO. In fact, he's working to protect it against any potential threat.

A question: if John Kerry was right on every issue, except he supported slavery, would you vote for him? Absolutely not. There are some issues that override any other attributes a person has. You are correct in that George Bush has many problems, but one of them is not being for the murder of unborn children. And this alone makes him more electable.

You suggest that this is "rank hypocrisy" but I think you are simply have liberal political views and are seeking an excuse to vote for Kerry. It's sad to see a Catholic flaunt all of the moral laws of his religion and have other Catholics stand up and suggest he is right.

Let's review what the Catechism says about abortion:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80

To take this a step further, Evangelium Vitae says about abortion that it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (73). I don't believe there is any clearer statement for why John Kerry cannot have our vote (despite our problems with Bush - who is pro-life - or our desire to have a Catholic president). A culture of life begins with a culture that doesn't support the mass murder of innocent babies - there will be no justice until Roe vs. Wade is overturned. You cannot vote for Kerry, Mike, sorry.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Kerry isn't even perfect on the death penalty: he would execute some criminals, such as terrorists. He is also for gay marriage and stem cell research. So far, he has yet to state his position on euthanasia. Basically, John Kerry is wrong on almost every "social justice issue," but he's more right than Bush on one: the death penalty. Is it more important for you to protect convicted felons or unborn innocent children? Please consider that when you go to vote.

Jay,

Your very quotation of the Evangelium supports why ones position on the death penalty issue IS the same.

If we are going to parse wording here and get into legal reasoning, is the formal cooperation in an abortion required for excommunication the same as support (which is never licit)- ie., does such support rise to the level of "formal cooperation"? For that matter does my laissez faire approach to the legal question rise to a forbidden level of tacit support? Must I as a Catholic agitate for legal change?

I seek no excuse to vote for Kerry. I do not and have never believed that the Church or individual Catholics spend our time wisely by myopically focusing to change abortion laws. And while your analogies on their surface appear appealing ie. Slavery and abortion are equal and therefore require complete abolition through law - notwithstanding the Evangelium they are not equal because whether we like it or not, this country does not value the group, or the whole human family over the individual. The individual's rights here are not bestowed by the Evangelium but by the Constitution.

Slavery was an institution of property rights vesting in one group complete rights over another group thus impacting the rights of that subjected group in their every endeavor. Abortion is at the same time just as evil yet plays out not on the grand scale of the daily subjugation by society of an entire group but on myriad individual levels of choice whereby one individual may exercise a right over another while in other cases that right is never even contemplated. Whereas the repeal of slavery denied one the right to own someone - in essence a property right - the denial of abortion through law subjects the individual (woman) to criminal sanction for controlling her own person during reproduction. While we believe through our faith that she has no right or control over that reproduction, there is no clear basis in the Constitution to deny her that right.

No matter the decision on a purely legal basis, there is no clear way to ensure the rights of one (the woman) without denying the rights of some other (the unborn child). If the right to life in the preamble is deemed paramount, the woman's rights are subjugeted to that of the unborn child. If the law is held as it currently stands the right of the unborn child is subjugated to that of the woman. While it may seem a simple choice given the Evangelium it becomes more complicated in a secular society.

I know I will not change your position and truly do not hope to. Please do not attempt or assume to discern my politics from one position - no one is all liberal or all conservative - if they profess to be so they do not think they simply react. Finally, please do not portend to dictate what I can and cannot do with my vote - it is my franchise and I will exercise it as I see fit.

Mike

P.S. I guess from your statements and reactions I could just as easily catagorize you as a conservative...but I'd rather think of you as a fellow Catholic.

Jay,

Your very quotation of the Evangelium supports why ones position on the death penalty issue IS the same.

If we are going to parse wording here and get into legal reasoning, is the formal cooperation in an abortion required for excommunication the same as support (which is never licit)- ie., does such support rise to the level of "formal cooperation"? For that matter does my laissez faire approach to the legal question rise to a forbidden level of tacit support? Must I as a Catholic agitate for legal change?

I seek no excuse to vote for Kerry. I do not and have never believed that the Church or individual Catholics spend our time wisely by myopically focusing to change abortion laws. And while your analogies on their surface appear appealing ie. Slavery and abortion are equal and therefore require complete abolition through law - notwithstanding the Evangelium they are not equal because whether we like it or not, this country does not value the group, or the whole human family over the individual. The individual's rights here are not bestowed by the Evangelium but by the Constitution.

Slavery was an institution of property rights vesting in one group complete rights over another group thus impacting the rights of that subjected group in their every endeavor. Abortion is at the same time just as evil yet plays out not on the grand scale of the daily subjugation by society of an entire group but on myriad individual levels of choice whereby one individual may exercise a right over another while in other cases that right is never even contemplated. Whereas the repeal of slavery denied one the right to own someone - in essence a property right - the denial of abortion through law subjects the individual (woman) to criminal sanction for controlling her own person during reproduction. While we believe through our faith that she has no right or control over that reproduction, there is no clear basis in the Constitution to deny her that right.

No matter the decision on a purely legal basis, there is no clear way to ensure the rights of one (the woman) without denying the rights of some other (the unborn child). If the right to life in the preamble is deemed paramount, the woman's rights are subjugeted to that of the unborn child. If the law is held as it currently stands the right of the unborn child is subjugated to that of the woman. While it may seem a simple choice given the Evangelium it becomes more complicated in a secular society.

I know I will not change your position and truly do not hope to. Please do not attempt or assume to discern my politics from one position - no one is all liberal or all conservative - if they profess to be so they do not think they simply react. Finally, please do not portend to dictate what I can and cannot do with my vote - it is my franchise and I will exercise it as I see fit.

Mike

P.S. I guess from your statements and reactions I could just as easily catagorize you as a conservative...but I'd rather think of you as a fellow Catholic.

Mike,
All of society involves subjugating someone's perceived "choice" for another's right. For example, murder is similar to abortion: one person chooses to end the life of another. In your viewpoint, what is the difference between a mother killing an infant or a having an abortion? Both involve the rights of two people. Both involve subjugating one person's will for anothers. Essentially in a secular society, there is no difference: the infant cannot vote.

My point is not that you cannot vote for Kerry, but you can't suggest you are being faithful to the teachings of the church in voting for Kerry. The church has been clear on the issue: Catholics can't vote for pro-abortion nuts like Kerry. Kerry isn't just an abortion sympathizer - he actively works to support the right of a mother to kill her children. He has promised not to allow any pro-life judges on the Supreme Court, which amounts to a blackballing of Catholics to the Court.

You can vote for Kerry, but don't pretend that you are doing it within the graces of the Church.

God bless,
Jay

Michael,

No one is proposing a law to control a woman's right to reproduction. But once she has reproduced, she ought to have a legal obligation to bring that child to term so that the child can be adopted.

Since the US Constitution is silent on these matters, I agree with Kerry's position from 1972 that it should be up to the States to decide. The legislative process is how a secular society balances competing rights, and people are free to come to a decision on how they vote by whatever means they choose. The Church and State are separated, but not people and God.

I think that if the Church wants this as a litmus test for Catholic politicians, so be it. However, I think the Church if they do this will be opening up deep divides among American Roman Catholics which will serve to drive more people away from the Church.

Again my problem is is this solely the litmus test? Or will it be euthanasia, war, poverty as well as other issues facing Catholics on a deaily basis? Will we start denying Holy Communion to married couple who use birth control? How far will this go? Whose to say that down the road they could very well deny Catholics like John Kerry final sacrement & burial in Catholic cemetaries? Who knows how far this will go

I think that the Church will be making a huge mistake by doing this and as far as I'm concerned, if this rule is applied to only Democrats and not Republicans (and so far it has), than frankly , and this troubles me to say this because I am a firm believer in the Church , the Saints, the supremacy of the Pope but I'd turn my back not on Christ , or the Church, but on some of the men who are running in.

Paul,
In my mind, this isn't a "litmus test," which implies that you simply meet this level and you are okay for office. However, I think everyone should have a problem with someone who professes a religion and simply ignores central tenants of that religion. In addition, abortion is the murder of children - can anything be worse?

I don't see this as an ultimate test, but a minimum requirement for my vote. I agree that Bush falls short on many issues, but he does beat Kerry in protecting innocent children, so he will end up with my vote (barring a Kerry change of heart).

Secondarily, it isn't the Church's job to water down the truth in order to keep people in the Church. It's the Church's job to openly proclaim the truth so that you, as an individual, have the opportunity to embrace it. If you believe that the Church's protection of innocent babies is so bad you want to leave, there isn't much anyone can do about it. And it's silly to suggest that the Church can't condemn a horrible action because they might condemn noble actions later on. This rule hasn't been applied to Republicans for two reasons (1) they aren't Catholic, unfortunately and (2) they are generally more pro-life than Democrats. The Church has always said that you should not vote for a pro-abortion candidate no matter his political party. Period.

In the end, as faithful Catholics we trust that our Church is lead in truth by the Holy Spirit. We are obedient to the Church as Christ was obedient to the Father - if we say we don't trust the Church, essentially we don't trust God to lead the Church.

God bless,
Jay

You've gotta love Cardinal Arinze:

A top Vatican cardinal said Friday that priests must deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, but stopped short of saying whether it was right for John Kerry to receive communion.

Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke at a news conference to launch a new Vatican directive clamping down on liturgical abuses in Mass which bars lay people from giving sermons, non-Catholics from taking communion and rites of other religions from being introduced in the service.

Later, reporters pressed him on the Kerry issue:

Arinze, a Nigerian whose Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document, said the church's position was clear and that U.S. bishops should decide in Kerry's particular case.

``The norm of the church is clear,'' he said. ``The Catholic Church exists in the United States and there are bishops there. Let them interpret it.''

When pressed to speak generally about the case of ``unambigiously pro-abortion'' Catholic politicians, Arinze concurred that such a politician ``is not fit'' to receive communion.

``If they should not receive, then they should not be given,'' he said.

That's pretty clear. I'd say that such a statement is tantamount to the Vatican saying that Kerry should not receive.

Maybe the Catholic Church should forgive John Kerry? Let's live up to loving and not shunning.

Josh,
They will as soon as Kerry stops supporting the right to murder unborn children. You can't receive forgiveness until you ask for it; and Kerry is doing the opposite of seeking forgiveness.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

You know, I don't think anyone can or should claim they are being faithful to the teachings of the Church when they vote in a secular society. Quite honestly, I've never looked to the Church to sanction or agree with my vote and I am not about to start now.

Your murder analogy is misplaced and overly simplistic - you fail to acknowledge the symbiotic relationship which will not allow one of the individuals to live outside the other individuals body...how much control should we be instituting here? Should a smoking pregnant woman be subject to arrest? How's about if she has a drink? Eats a poor diet? Doesn't go to the Doctor? While the infant cannot vote, the law recognizes that incarnation of a human being as a person imbued with all the rights society attributes thereto - your argument seeks to have that recognition begin at conception. This then is the ultimate decision of Roe that cannot be reconciled with the EV - that the legal rights of the unborn are not intact and complete at conception but mature during pregnancy to a point when the government can be cognizant of them. Prior to that time, the government affords them no protection. The only argument to change this is not based on reason, logic or shared morality but faith and religious dictate. This cannot be the basis for law in a secular society.

Paul Barba again succinctly points out the folly and hypocrisy in what has now become the Church's official position. Their are a number of pro-choice Republican politicians (Tom Ridge and Rudy Guilliani come to mind immediately) and this issue has never been raised until now...(And doesn't the Cardinal's recent statement play into those arguments given by anti "Papists" when Al Smith and JFK ran for president - ie. a Catholic would first take orders from the Pope. I wish the Vatican had so strongly and quickly addressed the "truth" of the ongoing Church sex scandal - I guess watering down the truth to retain membership applies to the quality of those that actually lead the faithful, the flock be damned).

Best regards,

Mike

So basically, Mike, you're secular. You are not voting based upon God's Will but your own. In the end, you simply are a Democrat first and a Catholic second. Remember, abortion is somewhat dangerous to children, it takes them and rips them to shreds in what should be the safest place in the world for them: their mother's womb.

The reason Catholics believe that we exist at the moment of conception is that God said "before I made you, I knew you." After the point of conception, a human would exist unless a doctor actively kills the growing being within the mother - this isn't an abstract idea, it's reality. A child exists at the moment of conception - you can vote to protect the child or to allow others to kill it.

A completely secular society does not abide by any moral law - the US is not a secular society. If you are seeking a purely secular society, then you'll have to move; the US is full of morally-based laws (ex: marriage between 2 people, statutory rape, etc).

This doesn't only refer to Democrats, Republicans can be wrong as well. Guilliani is a great example because I think he's Catholic, but of course he isn't running for president. As soon as he does, you'll see me go after him for the same issues. Any Catholic politician who supports abortion should not be supported by Catholics. It's that simple. If you aren't willing to protect the most innocent and helpless members of our society, then how can you be trusted to help anyone else?

I agree that the Church has made errors, particularly in the recent sex scandal. Does that mean they should simply accept sinful behaviors from this point forward? Or should they seek to stop accepting problems going forward? It's silly to say, "I no longer have to follow Christ's Church since a few members made a big mistake." I hope you realize the error.

God bless,
Jay

With the exception of abortion, shouldn't most Catholics be Democrat? It seems to me that the Democrats fight for an option to the poor, for a living and just wage, and just overall reaching out to the marginalized.

Also, if you are a pro-life Catholic voter, it would be more beneficial to register Democrat, because in doing so you have a far greater potential to vote the pro-life Democrat in during the primary. something you can't do as a Republican.

Frank,
I would agree. Elsewhere I've argued that the Democrats would probably be surprised by the support a pro-life Democrat would receive. Unfortunately the party seems to have made a decision not to allow pro-lifers to run for high offices (note that most Dems who run for president, such as Gore and Kerry, used to be actively pro-life).

Maybe one day . . .

God bless,
Jay

I was just reading how the Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Srpings has said that Catholics should not receive communion if they vote for pokliticians who support abortion rights, stem cell research, euthanasia or same sex marriage. Like I said how far are certain members of the Church willing to take this? We went from Abortion to now, the whole right wing spectrum.

We went from the sanctity of life to same sex marriage. I can't help but notice that there was no mention of gun control, which many Bishops have spoken up about, poverty or many other issues. As a Catholic we belive that all live is sacred, inside the womb and out. Its precisely this kind of selective morality that will create a deep division in the Church.

Now the Church is telling us who we should vote for? From what I've read , many catholics of different political persuasions have a problem with this.

Clearly we have seen the creation of 2 Catholic Churches. A Republican one and Democratic one, which is quite unfortunate.

In my opinion the blame goes on men like deal Hudson who has a clear political agenda. I find it very intersting how Mr. Hudson falls over himself when the Church goes after Pro-Choice Democrats, (but makes no mention of Pro Choice Republicans), then when the Vatican comes out and calls the war in Iraq (noter: Not Afghanistan)unjust,he dismisses them as "liberals". So which is it?

Its ok to follow Chuch doctrine when it fits Republican policies, but when its against as he says, we should "make our own decisions" I am copying this for you to read, you make the choice. Here it is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Vatican officials making these comments might claim that they were not meant as expressions of policy. But bishops with titles like “prefect” and “secretary of state” really don’t have private personas that allow the Catholics reading their remarks in the press to know they’re speaking without official authority. Not all bishops agree: What about the U.S. bishops who voted against the bishops’ conference resolution condemning the proposed war against Iraq?

One of the most serious consequences of official criticism is the undermining of our elected leadership. The Catechism of Catholic Church, in the section on just war, says very clearly that “the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [of war] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have the responsibility for the common good.”

Trusting political leadership in a time of war is decisive; most of us have lived through a period in America’s history when the moral authority of the presidency was lost. Those demons need not be loosed once again. It’s the prudential judgment of our president and his advisers (whose job it is to fight terrorism) that war in this case is just. And there are those of us—myself included—who believe the president is right in seeing the Iraqi threat as “lasting, grave, and certain.” As we have already seen in the case of Afghanistan, this administration can wage war in a manner that protects civilians. Certainly the prospect of an Iraq after an invasion could be no worse than what we see there now: a secular dictator with Stalinesque aspirations in a nuclear age.

I hope our leadership will continue to guide our thinking according to the principles of Catholic social teaching but allow us to support our president if that’s the decision we make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again notice that Deal Hudson, and a good number of conservative Catholics want it both ways. "We shouldn't undermine our political leaders" , seems omly to apply to Republicans, not Democrats. Which leads me to my next question. Why won't the Bishops come out and let us know what political party that are registered in?

PS: I thing it should be noted that Deal Hudson has worked closely with Republican operatives for the past 20 years to help them gain Catholic votes.

Paul Barba

Just a quick follow up to my last posting. 48 House Democrats who are Roman Catholic wrote a letter to the ArchBishop of Washington questioning denying Holy Communion to pro choice politicians. Among those who signed are several pro life politicans, and it seems that several Catholic Pro life REPUBLICANS have taken issue with this as well. As Rep. Bart Stupak (MI) a anti-abortion Democrat, made the point of my argumant crystal clear. Here is a quote from the Washington Post:

Stupak added that he has been surprised by the partisanship of some bishops. "I've had some threaten not to give Communion to me, even though they don't know my position, just becuase I'm a Democrat. I've had Cardinals refuse to shake my hand because I'm a Democrat."

Once again I ask the question, are the Cardinals and Bishops speaking as the representaives of the Church or card carrying members of the Republican party who just happen to be Cardinals & Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church?

Again I think this is madness, and I think that there is a hidden agenda at work here, particularly when I hear Deal Hudson's name involved. Many say pro chioce Catholics have more loyalty to the Democratic Party than the Catholic Church. Thats fine. Becuase after the Vatican came out and questioned the justice of the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan, many Catholics dismissed it, and harshly attacked the Vatican. After that I think it can be said that many anti abortion Catholics are more loyal to the Republican party than they are to the Catholic Church.

I think there will be no resolution to this, and I firmly believe that this is the start of a great divide within the Church then will threaten to split it, precisely at a time when Catholics need to stand together, even though we disagree on many things, but are united in our belief in Christ and his Church.

I hope that it will be resolved and that many Catholics, including myself will be able to step back and seek a course of resolution and not conflict among our Catholic brothers and sisters here at home and around the world. We simply cannot afford this now when we have some many enemies attacking our faith.

Paul,
You might be the first person I'm aware of that is arguing that our bishops are Republican! Virtually all the bishops lean towards the Democrats when voting, which is why most of them have not come out openly on the communion for pro-abortion politicians.

I think most bishops tend to want to support Democrats because of their social policies, but of course the Dems have decided to support euthanasia, abortion, fetal stem cell research and homosexual marriage - it's becoming more and more difficult for any Catholic to support a Democrat!

Ultimately Paul, I'll call the bishops into question only on an individual basis (broad brush strokes are meaningless) and I'll choose who to vote for on the same level. But I won't support pro-abortion politicians. Period. How can anyone support someone who fights to allow the murder of children?

God bless,
Jay

I know many Priests and Bishops who are okay with institutionalized homosexual unions. Sure, a homosexual marriage would not contain the procreative function of the sacrament of marriage and the Church should keep a homosexual union from being a sacrament, but legally, who are we to judge people of different faiths who have made this decision in good conscience? Basically, its just the life issues that Democrats botch that are of any concern to Catholics.

Again Jay the question is at what point do we draw the line? If the Bishops say we should not vote for politicians who support late term abortions, I'm all for it. But this idea that besides abortion, euthansa, stem cell research, and same sex marriage and the latest is all birth control. Again I think that goes much too far. I also think that it should not be up to the individual Bishops to decide.

Incidentally I have yet to see a Bishop say that they would deny Communion to the pro choice Republican. So far its been only John Jerry and Jim McGreevey of NJ.

Jay,

To raise your question again, but with edition: "How can anyone support someone who fights to allow the murder of some children...under certain circumstances like incest and rape?" That would be George Bush! So, who is left?

Bush's foreign policy aside for now, even the President is unfit for the office he now occupies from the perspective of Catholic morality. He's lucky that his Catholic opponent's "weird", and anything-but-Catholic position on abortion steals the headlines and so takes the heat off of him (Bush). Nevertheless, Bush's position is no more a Catholic position than Kerry's.

Bush has never claimed to by a "faithful Catholic" nor does he enjoy the title Knight of Columbus of the 4th degree.

The Church invites all to enter the fold and compels no one to remain. Regardless of one's decision, I hardly think that it is asking too much to require our leaders to make their decisions and act with integrity. On this simple matter of integrity of one's religious affiliation and public policy Kerry fails and I know of no similar failure on Bush's part.

I'm sure Pontius Pilate would have been able to invent slippery phrases such as "while I am personally opposed to crucifying innocent men, I do have a responsibility to the state in this democratic regime and so to preserve the peace you can crucify him yet I still wash my hands of this affair..."

I know when I was eight years old and listening to the passion I thought Pontius Pilate was a good and admirable man. That he pulled the wool so easily over my eyes is easy to understand. What I find harder to understand is how Pilate and Kerry can so easily pull the wool over the eyes of full grown adults.

True RIchard,

Bush makes no claim to be Catholic. But he has gone well out of his way to portray himself - and make sure that he is portrayed as - a Faithful Christian. Evangelical Christian bookstores around the NE Florida area all carry these large painted portraits of George Bush wistfully gazing into a very large, open Bible, and with the Presidential Seal behind his head like a halo!

No one here can demand, let alone expect Bush to act like a Catholic whilst in office. But I am a Catholic Christian and so must in fidelity to my conscience – and the teachings of the Church – vote like one, as best I can.

The failure on Kerry’s part is indeed clear. That makes our decision about Kerry all the easier. The failure on Bush’s part is not so clear – which makes it all the more tenuous, and (in my mind) suspicious at least, if not dangerous at worse.

I do not expect Bush to be or act like a Catholic when it comes to several issues – especially abortion. And he does not act like one. But then, my vote is not based on who acts more Catholic than the other, but rather it is based on what the Church teaches and the extent to which the candidates’ positions jibe with that, or not, regardless of their faith tradition.

And, some things that the Church teaches with authority are non-negotiable.

It is funny how I can read the same article you wrote with the quotes from Kerry about world opinion of what he meant and I can have another opinion of what he meant by that. Perhaps he was talking about birth control options that the FDA won't approve for the USA. Perhaps it was talking about Insurance Companies or the Government provided Education and Birth Control for Free to everyone. You know we had the Revolutionary War because the people were tired of their Government telling them how to believe. Oppressing them saying our way is the only way. Different is Different not necessarily wrong. The comment that someone else made about reaching out to the world ministering to them personally so they don't get themselves in situation that would require an abortion would be money well spent. My Father use to say well if all those Pro-Life people would step up to the plate and chose to adopt these unborn children or fund safe sex education maybe their views would carry more weight. If you just stand there and say this is wrong, but I am not going to do anything to show you a better way why would I listen to you. This country is founded on our Freedom. Freedom to decide for myself what I think is best. Maybe if these people who were pregnant weren't treated like sinful creatures and or were offered Health Insurance and money to support that child Abortion wouldn't seem like the better option. Hmmm What do I do! I have a child I can't pay for, take care of emotionally,or financially. It would be forced to be subjected to crime etc. or do I spare that child of the grief it is sure to go through. Sometimes Abortion for those people is the more loving gift in their minds then exposing them to all the ugliness of this world.

Right, Sabrina, so let's legalize homocide, slavery, and prostitution! These are merely government controls over our freedoms and what we think. Correct?

Obviously I'm joking, but that's where your logic leads. If we can't say abortion is murder, then how can we say slavery is wrong? Or homocide is wrong? You seem to suggest that povery is the worst possible condition - worse than never being born. Yet many, many great women and men came from very poor households. Did they deserve to die? That would prevent "exposing them to all the ugliness of this world."

The ugliness of this world is abortion and those so selfish that their material needs are more important than offering a child a chance to live.

By the way, there are many, many families waiting for children to adopt right now. Do you really think someone willing to kill their child because of convenience is going to carry the child to term and offer the child for adoption? Abortion doesn't happen because there are none to adopt these kids - abortion happens because people are materialistic, selfish and uncaring. Please tell your Father he's completely off base.

God bless,
Jay

Hi Sabrina;

I just wanted to add a bit to what Jay said in his last post.

You say that "sometimes Abortion for those people is the more loving gift in their minds than exposing them to the ugliness of this world."

This kind of arguement always disturbs and dismays me. What about people who are currently living in poverty....would killing them be the more loving thing to do? Should we erradicate the population of parts of Africa because many of the people who live there are poverty-stricken? What about people with disabilities or mental illness? Because someone is suffering or may suffer in the future, is that justification for killing them?

We all suffer. Suffering is a part of life. Because I may suffer more than the person beside me, does that make me more 'killable' than him/her?

How do you know what sort of a life this child may have? Even poor people are entitled to the chance to live and love and yes, even laugh.

It confuses me when people say that aborting a child is the more loving thing to do....you are killing a child because of your own personal beliefs in what his/her standard of living should be. How can this be love?

I work in psychiatry and I see alot of young people who are suicidal. Would it be more loving to kill them? Had their parents known this child would suffer from a mental illness, would it have been better had they aborted him/her? What about all that this child has learned, loved, experienced? Is that life not worth anything because he/she is suffering? What about hope for the future? What about the lives that are turned around, the young people who, at one point, want to end their lives, and then come out of their depression and become adults who have alot more to give from what they've learned from their ordeal? There's just no way to know what a person's life will be like. There's always hope.

Life isn't easy in any circumstance, whether you're rich, poor, tall, short, thin, fat, black, white. We all have our struggles....yes, some more than others. But you have no right to decide whether or not another human being can live based on what YOU think his/her life should be. That's not love.

In many cases bringing a child into this world does involve tremendous struggle on the part of (especially, but not only) the mother. Does that justify the killing of an innocent person? In this society (and I'm the first to admit it) we have no idea how to handle adversity, our lives are so filled with comfort and convenience. But because someone else might cause inconvenience or adversity in our lives, is that any justification for killing them? Of course not. So it should be for unborn people.

Nickie.

Sabrina,

I started typing this and then took a break to play some pick up basketball, so Nickie has already said a lot of what I am about to say. Regardless, you have to realize that her and Jay are right, and your logic is very bad. If the world were run on your logic we would have some very bad problems indeed. The most disturbing thing you said was, "It would be forced to be subjected to crime ect. or do I spare the child the grief it is sure to go through. Sometimes Abortion for those people is the more loving gift in their minds than exposing them to the ugliness of this world." First, you are stereotyping the unborn to be stupid, incompetent, weak people who would never have a chance to rise above the situation they would be born into. Remember, we are all born equal in this country and just because someone is born into poverty doesn't mean they cant be successful, or more importantly happy. This type of reasoning is the same type used by slave masters who tried to tell skeptics of slavery that slavery was alright because it was in the best interest of the incompetent black race. They argued black people weren’t smart enough to make it on their own the same way you argue these unborn children won’t be able to. Under your line of reasoning, a thoughtful / helpful person should probably go down to the welfare line and start shooting to save those poor people from the horrible suffering they suffer while poor. Another problem with this reasoning is its blatant disregard for important Christian principles. For instance, the principle that suffering is not bad, but makes us stronger people. The same one that tells us suffering is necessary for our salvation. http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000163.html and http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000158.html. Also, your view makes it obvious that you view being poor as being a bad / harmful thing even though Jesus teaches us, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3).

Also I would like to add that your view of American History is slightly skewed. The revolutionary war wasn't fought because England oppressed our right to freedom of speech. The war was fought because of the taxes England placed on America without allowing Americans membership in English Parliament.

Lastly, another problem with your logic is that you say that people are tired of being told what to believe and that they are wrong if they don't agree with the government. Nobody told you this, freedom of speech means you can say what you want, and I also can say what I want back. I am free to speak my mind that you are wrong, and you visa versa, and so long as neither of use are being jailed for this then we both have freedom of speech and neither can claim to be oppressed.

Wow, I was amazed at how Kerry tried to portray himself as a religious man during his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. His line about praying that God was on our side during the war on terror seemed pretty funny to me. I wonder if he prays the same that God is on his side of the Abortion Issue? I mean, how can you claim to have more moral character than the man your running against when you blatenly contradict the fundamental teachings of the church you claim to belong to, when you are hated by many veterans for stereotyping the average American soldier as a war criminal and breaking Military tradition by not only nominating yourself for a medal but doing so for an injury that you inflicted on yourself, and now most recently, when your accept enough money from a man to make him your biggest campaign contributor who happens to be buddies with Mob Hitmen (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/convention_stephen_bing_040728-1.html).

For as long as I can remember I have thought of abortion as one of the greatest immoral acts possible in human history. And quite frankly I am tired of secularists, and Democrats these days, hiding behind the "separation of Church and State" rhetoric that exists nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The phrase initially came from a letter Jefferson penned to a religious group that was afraid of being subordinated to the religious teachings of another. Our government, as the founders new, would only survive if it was under the direction of a moral, religious, and yes, Christian, people. America was founded on inalienable rights that have their source in a Creator, a God; unless you tear up both the Declaration and the Constitution, as Lincoln suggested when dealing with the issue of slavery contrasting with our nation's ideals, in no way can you claim we are a "secular" society. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.....all three are equal, all three are important, all three are the only basis for the justification of the American Experiment. If any of you have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is amazing how often it uses the term "inalienable right", which suggest the SYMBIOTIC, CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between Christianity and the United States of America in form and goal. Kerry plays the role of Pontius Pilate in personally opposing the death of a person on the grounds of his or her innocence, while still affirming the right of the majority to execute the innocent all the same. Pilate followed the direction of his "constituents"; so does John Kerry. Pilate washed his hands of the matter; it would take an unprecedented amount of time and a good deal of Ivory soap before Kerry could wash the blood of the innocent off of his hands. Morality need not a majority vote, it simply needs men of high moral fiber and character with the insight and wisdom to do what is right despite what anyone else says. Even if John Kerry is truly personally opposed to abortion, which seems unlikely, he still makes no moves at all to destroying that institution. He is the Pontius Pilate, the Stephen Douglass, of our time. John Kerry would have done nothing, were he in the position, to abolish slavery....1) it was allowed, supposedly, by the Constitution 2) the majority of people were personally opposed, but felt it was still necessary or not "their choice" 3) if he felt that Black people were human persons with the same inalienable rights, he would not make any moves toward justice for fear of the public thinking he was being pushed into it by the papacy. Doing something which CONCURS with the Vatican's position is NOT the same thing as doing it ONLY because the Vatican has said so. I was offended by Kerry saluting the American Flag at the DNC because I do not believe he is truly saluting the same one as the rest of us. It is not just Kerry's failure as a Catholic and observing the Bible that disturbs me; it is his failure to follow the truth found in other documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution, that totally, undeniably, makes John Kerry "unfit for command."

Sean,

I think your comparisions of John Kerry to Pilate and Douglass were great. I never really thought of it historically like that, but you make a great argument.

Thank you Tom Ace. I'm glad at least someone isn't willing to excuse John Kerry's failure to carry out what is demanded by both his faith and by the true meaning of the document he has sworn, as a public servant, to uphold. If you wish to continue any dialogue, feel free.

John Kerry works toward the goal of abortion being "rare, but safe and legal." That eliminates all the unconscionable, casual, abortions that take so many precious lives. It also saves many lives of mothers that are lost when abortion is illegal and dangerously performed. It's a pretty good goal, in my book. Compared to many of the public, who he is bound to represent in his vocation, Sen. Kerry's stance is definitely pro-life.

Most Catholics strongly oppose abortion. However, when it comes close to home, as in "my" daughter's health being threatened by a dangerous pregnancy, or even "my" family's way of life threatened by an untimely pregnancy, they get a glimpse of the horror of that "gray area" that we all wish didn't exist--the area of life choices in conflict.

People in those crisis areas deal with it in different ways. Our current President is proud of the fact that he sees the world in black and white. His youthful response to his own personal gray-area abortion decision, though, is not in line with the staunch anti-abortion advocacy that is attributed to him by his cheerleaders.

If the world was black-and-white, and "life" was only one thing--maximum procreation, the Church's stance would be easy to fulfill. But God's gift of life is present in much more than simplest biology. The needs of different levels of life always conflict, and as far as I can see, it's our duty to make our best choices with as much grace as we can.

M.Hettinger,
That's the most ridiculous statment I've read in a while. Kerry is not pro-life, after all he's enabling children to be murdered right? Are you next going to tell me that Bush is really against the death penalty with his pro-death penalty stance? Remember, Kerry has spoken at pro-abortion marches that Clinton refused to attend!

Just one point: Do you really believe less abortions would happen under Kerry than if abortion were made illegal? Let's be rational.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Is that one of the choices we're presented with?
Kerry vs. abortion being made illegal? It's not.

The President of the US has direct effect on many lives. As President, he has very little to say about abortion, which is tangled in courts because people are tangled. It's not likely to be resolved by any simple actions.

As far as I can see, Mr. Bush's signing of the Ban on Partial-birth Abortion was another of his photo ops--it got lots of voters behind him, but had little effect on abortion. Maybe he knew, and maybe he didn't.

I came to read your article because this issue is extremely important to me, but it's not the only issue.

I want to weigh the possible good in Bush's anti-abortion stance against his clear disregard for the process of Democracy, which is his primary job, and his wanton disregard for human lives such as the Iraqi people's, which he has taken responsibility for in our name.

Thanks for your thoughts.

M. Hettinger

A US President has three effective ways in which to deal with abortion:

a. The federal judges he appoints to the bench,
b. The loud megaphone that he whelds simply by being president, and
c. Signing federal bills that limit the funding and legality of abortion.

You said: You said: “As far as I can see, Mr. Bush's signing of the Ban on Partial-birth Abortion was another of his photo ops--it got lots of voters behind him, but had little effect on abortion. Maybe he knew, and maybe he didn't.”

In about fifteen years please tell that to the babies that lived because it was enacted, what they think of that statement.

You stated: “I want to weigh the possible good in Bush's anti-abortion stance against his clear disregard for the process of Democracy, which is his primary job . . .”

Please clarify what you mean here. I don't recall Bush ever disregarding the process of Democracy.

You stated “. . .and his wanton disregard for human lives such as the Iraqi people's, which he has taken responsibility for in our name.”

In case you have forgotten, which it seems like many people on this blog have done, Iraq was ruled by a cruel and malicious dictator, who murdered millions of Iraqi people during the course of his evil reign. Who knows how many millions more would have been killed had we not acted. That in and of itself is cause enough for a just war to liberate these people. To say anything less is to say that we shouldn’t have fought Germany in World War II. When we leave, Iraq will have a stable democracy. Your argument that somehow the Iraqi people would have been better off had we stayed out is ridiculous.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Just like to remind everyone here that traditionally, the catholic faith believes in a soul that enters the body with the first breath it takes. Therefore, abortion and cathlosism do not go hand in hand. I, myself would much rather be led by a man who weighs both sides. Bush is not a young, poverty stricken women, but neither am I so I guess the difference is one of us has a little thing called empathy.

Just like to remind everyone here that traditionally, the catholic faith believes in a soul that enters the body with the first breath it takes. Therefore, abortion and cathlosism do not go hand in hand. I, myself would much rather be led by a man who weighs both sides. Bush is not a young, poverty stricken women, but neither am I so I guess the difference is one of us has a little thing called empathy.

Just want to let Joe know that the teaching of the church is that the soul is infused at the moment of conception, not at the draw of the first breath. We celebrate the feast of the Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception, not just the Solemnity of Christmas and the Feast of the Birth of Mary. Secondly, what is morally right has nothing to do with one's economic status, one's gender or any other particular way in which one chooses to categorize (in order to neutalize), so let us just get that point cleared up. The teaching of the Church that procurred abortion is morally abborhent can be clearly traced back to the Didache c.70 a.d.
How many Catholics will be fooled by John Kerry's "personally opposed" nonsense? The ones who desire to be. Unfortunately, that number is so terribly high, because of a desire to vote democrat has blinded them to the truth. Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons that the democrat party can continue and will continue to be part of the culture of death. The willfully blind "Catholics" who, if they cared, even slightly about the teachings of the Church, and the dignity of human life, (including their own), would be demanding that the Democrat party change its stance. Do they do this? NO! Why? Perhaps it is because they just don't believe what the Church teaches. If such is the case, they have a great deal in common with John Kerry. It is proper that they should vote for him. They are like him, Kerry represents them. It is up to the rest of us Catholics, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution Party members, etc., to bring the light of the Gospel to the Democrat party. Sadly, the politicians have divided Catholics on this matter for too long. We are being played one against the other, to the detriment of the innocent. Party loyalties are much more important than being Catholic. Sadly too, legalized abortion will not end in this country until the Democrat party comes to the decision that they will benefit from a pro-life stance. That will only come when Catholics of all parties bring the Democrat party the light of truth, AND, when Democrats can figure out a way to say that they were always against procurred abortion and taking part in the culture of death. We have to find a way to help then lie their way out of it, or they will continue to lie their way around it. If the horror of procurred abortion continues, it is not the fault of John Kerry, or the Democrat Party. It will be the fault of willfully blind and lazy/ignorant "Catholics." In point of fact, it already is! Reading and accepting the guidance of moral relativist Moral Theologians will not absolove you of the responsibilty for that either. It just puts you in union with their willingness to "materially cooperate" in the evil. In this case, "material cooperation" is not as acceptable as these "moralists" (and some Pro Abortion Bishops, yes, there are quite a few of them out there), would like you to think it is. There is a point where material cooperation is not acceptable. The relativists choose not to tell you that! You have a choice in the matter. Force and fear does not come into play here. The basic moral norm is DO GOOD and AVOID EVIL, NOT, DO AS MUCH EVIL AS YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH, OR JUSTIFY (in your own mind).

I've been struggling with these issues for a long time. Feedback would be appreciated. Here's where I am at the moment.

One of the basic principles underscoring the abortion discussion is the argument that there are levels of sanctity of life (capital punishment lowest, war next, abortion highest),. At best these seem to me to be spurious, fallacious and ad shallow sophistry. Clearly, it’s the same kind of thinking that resulted in the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, etc; (another discussion for another time). But a life is a life is a life, and so all kinds of doubts and questions arise regarding the issue of sanctity of life: Who decided that there are levels of sanctity? What criteria did he/they use to determine this? By what authority? When did the Pope speak ex cathedra on the abortion issue, the sanctity of life issue? Why does the Church demand that the Magisterium be regarded as equal to ex cathedra regarding this issue? Isn’t the Magisterium’s outcomes the result of an enclave of old men trapped, as are we all, in their prejudices and preferences and opinions? When the Pope is a Catholic conservative aren’t all his decisions essentially conservative? When a Pope is a Catholic liberal aren’t all his decisions essentially liberal? Would a conservative Pope allow free rein to the liberals in the Magisterium? Would a liberal Pope allow conservatives free rein?

Even Aquinas created a gray area saying that abortions were not abortions until 40 days after conception for male fetuses and 60 days for female. The implication that females are less valuable then males would be consistent with his times, but not ours (well, at least not to that degree). Given Aquinas’ gray area and the absence of ex cathedra, doesn’t this put the whole discussion into the area of ubi dubitum, ibi libertas (especially for American Catholics)?

How can it be that sanctity of life applies less to capital criminals in this scheme of things? Isn’t it a high crime and mortal sin to deprive someone, anyone, of the opportunity for redemption? Execution stands in the way of a soul’s ability to gain the state of grace that would allow even a murderer to enter heaven. Isn’t it possible that taking a criminal’s life before he is ready to seek or been able to find forgiveness is thwarting God’s plans? Does the state have the complicity of the Church in determining the timetable by which the criminal must repent and seek God’s grace? In other words, does the state or the Church have the right to say to the condemned, in effect, you have one year to seek repentence for your crime and sin, then, ready or not, here comes the needle. If God’s plan is to wait until the criminal comes authentically to repentence, isn’t the state and Church guilty of a grievous sin? Who REALLY knows God’s plans for our immortal souls? Without that knowing, how can we risk our own souls and continue to execute criminals? In what way is a fetus’ soul more valuable than a criminal’s?

In regards to war, the questions associated with some hierarchy of the sanctity of lives are just as compelling. Haven’t Iraqi infants and children been killed in Bush’s unnecessary, illegal and immoral pre-emptive war? When a tank commander is ordered to fire on a school because terrorists are using children as shields, how are the children’s “collateral” deaths different from abortion? If a woman decides to end her pregnancy, in what way is the death of a child more sinful if it is aborted than if it is blown up? On what basis did the Church decide that a fetus is more important than a living child? Dead is dead. Is the basis solely because the conduct of the war has the blessing of Church and state to do so? Or is it because a woman is powerless, but the tank commander and his superior are powerful? Where does the buck stop?

If John Kerry is elected he must swear on the Bible to uphold the law of the land and the Constitution of the United States (like it or not, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality). If he is compelled officially to follow the precepts of his religion he couldn’t keep his oath nor serve the entire constituency of his office. Then he, and every other Catholic, can NEVER be elected to Federal office. Many of you may remember that prior to President Kennedy, NO Catholic was elected to the Presidency because the ultra-Christian right maintained that a Catholic President would be a puppet of the Pope. Those of you who would make this a one-issue election, consider that you may be casting Catholics back into those “dark ages” once again. Could the return of that attitude be a desired and planned outcome of these attacks on Senator Kerry? Do the handful of bishops who are so vocal about this issue plan on voting for President Bush? Why aren’t the bishops condemning all the Republicans, Catholic and Protestant, who also are pro-choice? If, as anti-abortionists have claimed, a fetus is fully human and ensouled, why haven’t the bishops, cardinals and the Pope called for charging all women who have abortions with first degree murder? Then what if the courts require that these women receive the death penalty? Who is culpable? Are the bishops, cardinals and the Pope incapable of error? Of sin? Not lately.

That the bishops have singled out one politician by name, religion and party affiliation; they don’t condemn other pro-choice office-holders just as personally and across religious and party lines; they don’t condemn others who favor war and capital punishment, makes it crystal clear that this attack, this sudden foray onto the national landscape is totally, hopelessly political. Consequently, isn’t it easy to conclude that the bishops have fastened on this Church issue exclusively to use the pulpit to sway a national election? Is all this a diversion? Are they playing into the ultra-conservative Protestant Republicans’ hands and ensuring that no “Papist” will ever get elected again? Why aren’t conservative Christians NOW playing the “Papist” card? Are they waiting ‘til after the election? In the end, where does the separation of church and state figure into all this?

Humans can never fully and finally KNOW anything. It’s all belief and faith, and, regardless of how firmly these are held, both in the end are a personal opinions. And in matters of opinion, no one person’s even well-thought out opinion is better than another’s. So, ubi dubitum, ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.

Rigan,

As a non-Catholic I can't answer all your questions. I will say two things however:

1. There is a God and He has revealed Himself to us. In other words, there is TRUTH and it is KNOWABLE. Otherwise what is the point of even talking about God or truth. Each man should do as he see fit in his own eyes. To rephrase your quote above, Where there is doubt there is first freedom . . . then moral relativism . . . then chaos . . . and then ultimately as society realizes it can't exist in perpetual chaos it resorts to authoritarianism.

2. I think that your issues around the difference between the Abortion, War and Capital Punishment can be resolved by looking at the Bible and the authority that God has given individuals and institutions He has instituted. It is clear in the Bible that individuals NEVER have the right to take a life. This is why abortion, euthanasia, and murder is always wrong. Exodus 20:13 The State or the governing authorities on the other hand do have that right to take a life in certain circumstances. (ie War and Capital Punishment.) See Exodus 21:12-17 and Romans 13:1-5 and many other references too many to list here. Now the state can abuse this God given authority, but the authority itself is there none the less. If you take the Bible as a whole this concept is fairly clear.

I know that others on this blog will disagree but the whole concept of the Pope and Magisterium and which Church Father said what, only increases the confusion. Look to the Bible. It doesn't change, and isn't subject to the whims of current politics and culture like the institutions of men are.

Hope that this helps.

In Christ,

Thomas

Rigan and Thomas,

First, Rigan are you really looking for answers or did you just want to rant? If you are sincere I would suggest reading Pope John Paul II's The Gospel of Life. Second, this isn't that hard to understand...yes a life is a life but let's consider two factors: 1) innocence and 2) ramification.

1) Innocence - an unborn child is completely innocent and has done nothing that could or should result in the lose of life. Yes, in war innocent people (adults and children) die, but is it the result of an intentional act? In other words, to apply this to your example of the war in Iraq, did Bush send troops to Iraq with the purpose of killing innocent people...the answer is obvious...NO. Whereas the mother who aborts her baby intends to kill that baby and rid herself of what she considers to be an inconvenience.

2)Ramification - While the Catholic Church condemns capital punishment due the ability of governments to securely protect society from those individuals who pose a threat to the well-being of others and from the desire to allow time for that individuals conversion, we must consider the ramifications of an act. Abortion kills an unborn child "literally" for being conceived. War results in the lose of human life due to efforts to achieve some cause, be it liberation, or prevention of some evil...like future terrorism. Capital punishment serves two purposes in society; 1) to deter other potential criminals from committing such crimes, and 2) to lower costs for running prisons. Some would claim that capital punishment is administered to promote justice but this approach ignores God's authority over human life and the capacity of government to securely prevent that individual from ever doing harm to society again.

In reference to your comment Thomas, you continue to amaze me...so moral relativism, or better yet Christian relativism is the desired state? So keep doing what you see as best in your eyes but don't take the liberty of telling anyone else that they are wrong, since they might, just like you, be doing what they believe is right in there eyes.

Also, I love the comment about the authority of the Magisterium and the writing of the Church Fathers only leading to greater confusion. That is very rich coming from an individual who has more than likely never read any document of the Magisterium. Remember willful ignorance is just that. Also, I find such a statement completely ironic coming from a Protestant. You make it sound like all is well in the relative world of Protestantism. And yes I know you won't agree with this, but the real mess came after the Reformation...it is the relativism of Protestantism that has led to where we are today, for Christian relativism naturally leads to moral relativism. Just think about it.

In Christ,
Joe

Test

Joe,

I am confused by your comments. My premise is this:

1. There is a God.
2. God is Truth
3. God has revealed Himself to us.
4. Therefore Truth is knowable.
5. God has placed upon us the job of finding that Truth.

I think and hope that you agree with these statements. Here is one that you may or may not agree with but I think is equally true.

1. It is not easy to find this Truth. Nothing in this life is. In fact it takes hard work, but anything in this life worthwhile is difficult to obtain.

I think the true issue between you and I is how do we go about finding that Truth. You believe that the Church holds the answer. I believe that the Bible holds the answer. You disparage my claim because you claim that the Bible can be interpreted any number of ways, and that my claim of authority of the Bible is based ultimately upon the authority of the Church anyway. I disparage your claim based upon the fact that the historic Bible makes no claim that the Pope and Magisterium would be infallible in their teachings. In fact there is no such positions even mentioned in the Bible. What you have are a few verses, and very few at that, that could mean almost anything. We have gone round and round on this, and I don’t believe that we will convince each other.

Now I never said that moral relativism, nor Christian relativism is the desired state. I fully agree that moral relativism is incorrect. Thus my statement that There is a God and He is knowable. I have never stated that we should each do what is right in our own eyes. There are things that are clearly wrong, and not only should we attempt to convince others that they are wrong, but I will take it a step further and state that we should and must impose the standards of Truth on others in certain circumstances.

I may be completely ignorant of the Church’s teachings, but that does not mean that I do not have ability to discern Truth. I do not need to read every book that exist in the world, and know every thought of every man that ever existed to know what the truth is. When I spoke of greater confusion, what I meant by my statement was that it is simpler to just read the Bible and get your answer than to wade through all the 1000 volumes of the early church fathers writings to find the truth among the contradictory statements of those fathers. If you want the Truth go as close to the source as possible, if you find it there, then you don’t have to mess with the rest.

I’m confused by what you mean by Christian relativism. This is a new angle for you to argue. I think that you are saying that because I base my views on the Bible, and that Protestants historically have interpreted the Bible in many different ways, that I myself believe that morals are relative to the situation and person, that in essence there is no such thing as Truth. I do not believe this as I have stated before, but if that is what you want to call me go ahead. There is a true interpretation of the Bible, it is up to each of us to do the hard work of figuring what that interpretation is. Ie my second point number one above. Whether we as humans have historically done a good job of this is another issue entirely.

I don’t have time to go into it right now, but I believe that your whole statement about Capital Punishment and the Church’s stance is Biblically wrong. Please see my other posts on this subject. But I will state that the main justification for Capital Punishment is not deterrence (based upon the statistics this just isn’t true), certainly not to hold down cost (this would be just barbaric to even suggest this), it is not necessarily the “justice” you state here (however, God has clearly delegated His authority over human life in certain circumstances to the civil government) nor is it the secure these individuals from society (this is just another form of deterrence and is also illegitimate). The main purpose is punishment, and unfortunately we have lost sight of this fact in the world today.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

You and I are in agreement on a lot of subjects.
You articulate your thoughts much better then I do.

I don't understand why (And this is my perception) the RCC apologists want to disqualify any non Catholic from using the bible
in our arguments. Our church didn't assemble the
bible so what right do non catholics have to try and interpret it or have an opinion on it..

Using that logic What right do Christians have interpreting the OT. It was a Jewish book written for Jews by Jews. The NT was still written by Jews, they were now completed or Messianic Jews, but they didn't stop being Jews..
So the bible is really a Jewish book.. What right do non Jews have to try to interpret a Mostly Jewish book...?

I feel like an outsider instead of a brother in Christ when trying to express my point of view.
Isn't the bible truth? Isn't it for everyone who seeks the truth ? Oh, that's right we need the magistiurm and the pope to decode it for us ...

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Thomas,

Thank you for your input. I envy you your certitude. As for me, I fear this is a lifelong quest from which will come no such finality.

1. To “know” requires concrete, objective, verifiable evidence. When you say there is TRUTH and it is KNOWABLE, you really are saying that you BELIEVE there is TRUTH and it is KNOWABLE. I know this seems to be a semantic quibble, but without hard evidence I don’t see how the word KNOW can be used here.

2. You say, individuals NEVER have the right to take a life. How is it different when an individual judge sentences a criminal to the death penalty? How is it different when an individual head of state wages a war? How is it an atrocity when Saddam Hussein preemptively invades Kuwait, but it’s justified when the President of the US does the same thing in Iraq? How is it terrorism when bin Laden sends insurgents into Iraq to kill US troops whom he believes are terrorists? You object to moral relativism, but aren’t those who excuse the President for waging this unnecessary, immoral and illegal war applying relativism to obtain their excuse? Isn’t the biblical authority you call upon a form of relativism? Romans 13:1 says “. . . the powers that be are ordained of God.” Aren’t Saddam and Kim Jong Il and Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini among the “powers that be?” If not, then it can only be because of a relativistic interpretation of the pertinent Bible citation. I know that the usual explanation for this Biblical confusion is that the Hebrew Bible only applies to Hebrew leaders, but that in itself is a relative exclusion.

Joe’s harsh words notwithstanding, I do think you misspoke yourself when you laid out your continuum from freedom to authoritarianism. I think you may have meant that too much freedom leads to anarchy, not authoritarianism. It’s just a guess, but it isn’t a logical progression to go as you do from too much freedom to a rejection of all freedoms. Really, the only measure of how much freedom we have is how free we are to be irresponsible. Then, how wise are we to choose to be responsible with our freedoms; but WE do the choosing, not some tyrant, no mat