The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe U.S. bishops and abortion law -- II
by Richard McBrien on Jun. 28, 2010
Chapter 8 of Fr. Charles Curran's forthcoming book, The Social Mission of the U.S. Catholic Church: A Theological Perspective, to be published by Georgetown University Press before the end of the year, focuses on the U.S. bishops and abortion law.
Curran, the Scurlock University Professor of Human Values at Southern Methodist University and a priest of the diocese of Rochester, N.Y., points out that the U.S. bishops' statement in advance of the 2008 presidential election, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," appealed to Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's consistent-ethic-of-life principle, but with a twist that Bernardin himself would not have appreciated.
His understanding of the consistent-ethic-of-life rejected two extreme views: the one which treats all issues as morally equivalent, and the other which reduces the Catholic concern to one or two moral issues.
The bishops' statement, on the other hand, referred to abortion as a preeminent threat to human dignity because it directly attacks human life itself. As such, abortion is intrinsically evil, that is, unlike other moral issues, it can never be justified.
Therefore, being "right" on all other elements of Catholic social teaching can never excuse being "wrong" on abortion. To use the verb that several bishops employed during the 2008 presidential campaign, abortion "trumps" all other moral issues.
Following the main lines of Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical, Evangelium vitae ("The Gospel of Life"), the bishops asserted in 2008 that no public official claiming to be Catholic can responsibly advocate for, or actively support, direct attacks on innocent human life.
In the bishops' minds, to be pro-choice, which is a political position in accord with civil law, is equivalent to being pro-abortion.
Father Curran observes that there is some tension in the 2008 statement. The bishops insisted that, while Catholics are not single-issue voters, a candidate's position on abortion may disqual-ify that candidate from receiving a Catholic's support.
At the same time, the bishops employed some casuistry in the document. Thus, a Catholic may reject a candidate's position on abortion, but vote for that candidate for "other morally grave reasons."
Charles Curran argues in his new book that the U.S. bishops have claimed too much certitude for their position on abortion law. Since Catholic teaching recognizes that in theory we cannot be certain when the soul is infused, Catholics have to be careful not to claim apodictically that abortion, even of an early embryo, is murder.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
In addition, law and morality are two different realities. Passing a law always raises an issue of feasibility.
In 1981, some right-to-life advocates attacked the U.S. bishops for supporting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of certain Federal funds to pay for abortions, rather than stronger amendments that would have outlawed more abortions.
The bishops judged that the stricter approaches had little or no chance of being passed.
Furthermore, there are at least two understandings of law, Curran notes, the Thomistic and the religious freedom approaches. The bishops based their position regarding abortion law on the Thomistic approach, which holds that abortion is morally wrong because it is against the natural law, and that the civil law can never go against the natural law.
The religious freedom approach, on the other hand, begins not with natural law but with the freedom of the citizen to act in accord with conscience, also recognizing the rights of others and of society.
In light of the religious freedom understanding of law and the present division in U.S. society, a Catholic could support the present abortion law. Curran points out that some anti-abortion Catholics, both Democrat and Republican, have taken such an approach. For them, "pro-choice" is not the same as pro-abortion.
The bishops, however, claim that abortion is different from other social issues because it is intrinsically evil. But intrinsic evil is a moral term, not a legal term. The Catholic Church also teaches that artificial contraception, masturbation, and lying are intrinsically evil, but no one today claims that there should be a law that criminalizes such acts.
The bishops have a mandate to teach, Curran agrees, but they also have to admit there are other legitimate Catholic positions on abortion law. Likewise they should be careful not to allow their teaching on abortion to become a tool in the hands of those with political concerns.
The following story, not in Curran's forthcoming book, underscores this final point.
An American archbishop has privately acknowledged the great pressure he was under to condemn the University of Notre Dame for inviting President Barack Obama to speak at last year's Commencement and to receive an honorary degree. That pressure, the archbishop disclosed, came from operatives of the Republican Party.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
A question from a simpleton:
A question from a simpleton: Who is the arbiter of the natural law? That is, who determined that "abortion is against the natural law"? And when? Is this a universally accepted principle of the natural law?
"who is the arbiter of the
"who is the arbiter of the natural law"
That is an excellent question. Many thought the Thomistic view of natural law philosophy dissipated with the acceptance of the scientific method. For many of us schooled in scholasticism grew up with the rationale of 'natural law' as an acceptable entity. Now however, it is an insufficient cause and an evergreen taken to us as if it continues to have valid meaning. The answer forthcoming is that the question ought to be moot, regarding its learned replacement in science. Much of which we espoused with certainty just isn't so...and the wise person seeks the truth where the truth is, not where any wish to put it. Natural Law might pass into the 'principle of uncertainty'.
Do we even *have* a natural
Do we even *have* a natural law?
Are there not even different *versions* of natural law?
A sticky wicket, to be sure.
I have a question regarding
I have a question regarding the "natural law" argument against abortion.
If, as we know, anywhere from 20% to 30% of ALL conceptions are naturally spontaneously aborted,how can we say that abortion is against nature.
I think our pro-life arguments would be more convincing if they came from a higher intellectual and spiritual plane.
Your argument makes no sense.
Your argument makes no sense. There is a difference between something naturally occurring (the death of a child prior to birth) and the deliberate killing of that child. Your logic would mean that those opposed to abortion have to be opposed to all death, even that naturally occurring. Your argument would mean that someone being murdered and someone dying of natural causes are exactly the same. Someone dying from a heart attack or a tornado or a lightening strike is the same as someone stabbed to death on the street.
An American archbishop has
An American archbishop has privately acknowledged the great pressure he was under to condemn the University of Notre Dame for inviting President Barack Obama to speak at last year's Commencement and to receive an honorary degree. That pressure, the archbishop disclosed, came from operatives of the Republican Party.
The vocal majority of US bishops does seem to toe the line of the"much to the right" Republicans...then again, the Catholic Church has never yet embraced democracy nor a thoroughly formed conscience which might differ from Catholic "teaching"...
It seems our US bishops are falling all over themselves in a rush to cuddle up to and toady under the political Right...it certainly gives them a lot of free press coverage, photo ops & hobnobbing time with the rich and [in]famous.
Would that our bishops stop hopscotching from diocese to diocese in a race to the top (whatever that is!) and once again live with and for the people in their dioceses...to actually know their people (not just the rich and the politicians) and walk WITH their people, to treat all the people in their diocese as intelligent human beings, not subjects under their thumb. Until then, they continue to be less and less relevant to the Catholics in their dioceses & the entire U.S.
And yet those fake Catholic
And yet those fake Catholic groups that give cover for Catholics to vote for abortion, like "Catholics" United for the Common Good, are founded by career DNC operatives and Democratic campaign staffers and funded by George Soros and his organizations solely to pull enough Catholics away from Catholic teaching to win the White House. And they succeeded by convincing enough Catholics that the party of open free abortion, gay sex ed for pre-k students is the real "pro-life party."
It is people like you that
It is people like you that give the church a bad reputation. Stop promoting hate and intolerance.
Don't forget that the
Don't forget that the Democratic Party is the party of Social Security,Medicare civil rights legislation,justice for working people and many other initiatives endorsed by the American bishops. All of the above make life better for all Americans,born and unborn. I wish that the right would take these things into consideration and let go of their obsession with sex.
Curran is probably the best
Curran is probably the best moral theologian in the Catholic Church today. Also, Cardinal Bernadin had a keen intellect and a deep pastoral soul. His grasp of not only the mission of the Church, but also the context in which it is carried out conveyed a strong Christ-like posture. Curran's regard for conscience and Vatican II coupled with a grasp of the complexity of issues confronted by the faithful today pursues the deeper mission of the Church to change society by understanding the forces within it. I can't wait to read Curran's book.
Pat K., I couldn't agree
Pat K., I couldn't agree more! We in Chicago loved Cardinal Bernadine. He treated us like human beings who had the DNA of God within us. What a loss his death brought to us and many others around the world.
Then "they" (the Vatican) look far and wide for the polar opposite and we have been suffering under this "yes" man ever since! I hope he retires soon and leaves town. He has done absolutely nothing pastorally like Cardinal Bernadine did. We all were so proud of him! Can't say the same for Joseph's replacement!
A brief but informative
A brief but informative article on the complexities of abortion and the terminology and concepts that underlie this difficult problem. It would be helpful to see a discussion about abortion in connection with its sister issue of birth control. I'm thinking of the recent article about the termination of an 11 week pregnancy of a young mother with 4 other children suffering from a chronic hypertension/pulmonary problem. What kind of reproductive rights did she have in her very difficult life circumstances? All I could think was how her "hands were tied". She couldn't practice birth control, thus she already had 4 children at a young age. I don't know the details of her life; whether she had her 4 children or became pregnant the 5th time, before she was diagnosed with her chronic and possibly terminal/fatal illness. She couldn't be the only young woman facing this type of situation. As a woman I don't see much compassion or understanding coming our way from the Roman Catholic hierarchy. If God said that it was not good for man to be alone, then why are we treated with such disdain especially by the hierarchy as it relates to the teachings and pronouncement as it relates to sexuality, primarily as it relates to bearing children.
I thought that birth control
I thought that birth control might be her answer to, accept that the pulmonary hypertension was related to her pregancy - rather than being a chronic problem. For the future, however, sterilization would seem a good idea for her own health - although that decision is hers, not ours and certainly should not be the Church's.
This story about the
This story about the archbishop in the Indiana diocese is horrific - thinking of the people who did not sell out for the evil called money. What kind of a leader would do that?
The recent confrontation by
The recent confrontation by Bishop Tobin with Rep. Patrick Kennedy over his votes on abortion issues is a good example of this type of teaching. It certainly does not respect the freedom of conscience of a Catholic legislator who I imagine has agonized as to his responsibility on such issues. I say this while totally disagreeing with Mr. Kennedy’s decision as well as with the bishop’s action. Avery Dulles sums up the dilemma very well: “In Christianity the submission to external authority can never be absolute because a man can never transfer to anyone else the responsibility for his own religious faith. That must be a matter between himself and God.” (Dulles, A., Spirit, Faith and Church, p.42, 1970, Westminster Press).
After weighing all the arguments I still make up my own mind. God will judge me on my decision, not the bishops.
Kennedy and those like him
Kennedy and those like him are free to vote for abortion according to their (misformed) conscience. However, if there conscience tells them to support and fund the murder of children, then it should also tell them to accept the consequences.
Abortion is not up for a vote
Abortion is not up for a vote in America - which is kind of the point that Catholic politicians need to make more strongly to their bishops. The fact that some bishops think this is a matter for legislation - or could ever be again at the state level - shows how badly advised the bishops are by their lawyers.
Let's see--just how many
Let's see--just how many Democrat so-called Catholic members of the House and Senate voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion?? There was an instance when abortion was up for a direct vote and these people voted against a ban on a gruesome procedure that even doctors admitted was not necessary. This is the type of issue that bishops should constantly remind their people.
Similarly, I am "pro-choice"
Similarly, I am "pro-choice" on other issues. For example, if someone wants to own slaves, well, I am NOT pro-slavery. I would never own a slave for myself. However, I am pro-choice. I think that individuals should have the choice to own slaves. Although I disagree with the Church on this matter, I think my belief is justified because, after all, law and morality are two different issues (you said so, Father). We should always keep them separate. There is nothing more non-sensical than a law that is moral.
Exactly! Imagine a democrat
Exactly! Imagine a democrat saying this--but it is the same as supporting abortion!
An interesting if imperfect
An interesting if imperfect analogy since Catholics as well as religious orders like the Jesuits owned slaves. When they gave up being slave owners, the Jesuits did not free the slaves but sold them down South which was the equivalent of a short life for them. The Church in the South also supported segregation. Where was the natural law?
One of the many problems with the Church's stance on abortion, is that they have lied that the Church has always taught that ensoulment occurs at the the moment of conception. Read Thomas Aquinas to see what was being taught. The second problem is that a law will not work when the people do not support it. Check the history of Prohibition. Rather than attempting to use the civil law to enforce the hierarchy's view, a very dangerous approach for many reasons, the Church needs to do more to see what the causes of abortion are and how they might be addressed rather than saying it is a matter of inconvenience. Lastly the hierarchy has hopped into bed with the right wing Evangelicals, who if they gained power, would soon turn on the hierarchy. Read the history of prayers in the schools as Protestants tried to use tax dollars to proselytize the immigrant children.
Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it sounds like the motto of the present hierarchy.
Firstly, slavery and abortion
Firstly, slavery and abortion are not the same, and the imperfect past of members of the Church does not negate the search for moral rectitude and correction for her members.
Secondly, you are absolutely wrong to bring up the ensoulment question when it comes to abortion. It is inconsequential when the child actually gets the rational soul that imbues it with certain attributes of humanity. Rather, at the moment of conception the sperm and egg cease to be separate entities and become human life.
While it is true that this life does not look like what we would call human, the fact of the matter is that this is an incipient human life that, given its natural course, will grow and mature. Even the potential for life is sacred, and we do not have the right to interfere with natural processes like conception and life. Your ensoulment argument is merely a red herring and I take no truck with it.
It is truly interesting that
It is truly interesting that on the issue of abortion, so-called "progressive Catholics" such as Fathers McBrien and Curran claim that "there are other legitimate Catholic positions on abortion law". However, on issues such as the death penalty and just war, many of these same folks will claim them to be absolutely immoral and intrinsically evil.
What is interesting, and amusing, in this is that these folks have it absolutely inverted. The Catholic Church has held for 2 millennia that war and the death penalty are both justified in certain circumstances, but she has also held, for the same 2 millennia, that abortion is always, in every circumstance, morally reprehensible and intrinsically evil.
In other words, yes, there are a multiplicity of positions on the issue of abortion, but there is only ONE legitimate Catholic position: that abortion is morally wrong in every single circumstance. Anything else is simply not consistant with Catholic teaching and theology.
Clint Green on Jun. 28, 2010.
Clint Green on Jun. 28, 2010.
You stated:
"It is truly interesting that on the issue of abortion, so-called "progressive Catholics" such as Fathers McBrien and Curran claim that "there are other legitimate Catholic positions on abortion law". However, on issues such as the death penalty and just war, many of these same folks will claim them to be absolutely immoral and intrinsically evil.
What is interesting, and amusing, in this is that these folks have it absolutely inverted. The Catholic Church has held for 2 millennia that war and the death penalty are both justified in certain circumstances, but she has also held, for the same 2 millennia, that abortion is always, in every circumstance, morally reprehensible and intrinsically evil.
In other words, yes, there are a multiplicity of positions on the issue of abortion, but there is only ONE legitimate Catholic position: that abortion is morally wrong in every single circumstance. Anything else is simply not consistant with Catholic teaching and theology."
----------------------------------------
There is nothing amusing in that the Church splits hairs when it deals with life.
It has effectively twisted the Commandment "Not to Kill" to mean that innocent men, women and children (even babies) can be killed in war. What is the difference between an unborn baby at 8 months and a newly born infant of about one month? Both are defenseless, unable to even sit up without help, unable to run away from danger. So why is it not a sin for the one month old infant to be killed in war, but a sin deserving of excommunication, if an unborn baby is killed?
Or is it because war was engaged in completely by men (and is still largely so) and therefore can be excused? In the Phoenix case---according to the Doctrinal Committee of the USCCB---the woman at St. Joseph Hospital was supposed to die. She was expected to die, even though her fetus couldn't survive outside of her body. Didn't matter---she was still expected to die.
In defining law, Aquinas states that it is an ordinance of reason, promulgated by rightful authority for the common good. Where is the reasonable ordinance to be found in the destruction of innocent non-combatants in war? And where is the divine reason behind wanting this woman dead? Because in plain words---that is what these bishops are saying. Women with troubled pregnancies (where their life is endangered by the growing life within them), are expected to DIE.
There is nothing reasonable about this teaching. And this teaching is NOT for the common good.
You create your own strawman
You create your own strawman arguements, attach them incorrectly to Catholic teaching and then think you made some sort of a point. To wit:
"Where is the reasonable ordinance to be found in the destruction of innocent non-combatants in war?"
I have never seen any Catholic teaching that condoned the destruction of non-combatants. In all cases it is an evil thing to do.
"And where is the divine reason behind wanting this woman dead?"
This is complete poppycock. No one at any level wanted this woman dead. What is the reason for wanting the child killed? Catholic teaching would call for efforts to save both. Killing one in favor of the other is evil pure and simple.
No one "wanted" the child to
No one "wanted" the child to be killed, however it had no chance of survival under any reasonable circumstances - and therefore NO RIGHT TO IT. Until the USCCB sees that, their Directive on the issue will be considered flawed and will be duly ignored.
They would have much more credibility on the 90% of abortions where there is no rape, incest or danger to the life and health of the mother if they handled the 10% where there is more reasonably. They get bogged down on the close calls and often come to a conclusion that is not based on either natural law or divine law (which must assume a merciful God rather than a punishing one) - I suspect because they fear that God will smite them for using common sense rather than faith (and this betrays a lack of real faith) and by doing so lose all of their credibility.
Their irrelevance is self-inflicted.
What those who attempt to
What those who attempt to stitch the "seamless garment" together miss is that there is an understanding in Church teaching of the "unintended consequence". Suppose I am driving down the interstate and suddenly a person walks out in front of my car. I slam on my breaks and stop the car in order to save the life of this person. In the process, the car behind me cannot stop fast enough and slams into me, injuring the driver and killing the passenger. Should I feel guilt or be held accountable for this death? No, because it is an unintended consequence of my saving the life of the pedestrian. I did not intend for this accident to happen and certainly did not intend to kill an innocent person.
War is similar to this scenario. The just war, such as World War II, is fought for justified reasons. In WWII, the reasons were to free Europe from a murderous tyrant, to save the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children, and to stop aggression in Europe and in the Far East. Now, were innocent men, women and children caught up in this war; were they killed or left injured or homeless? Unfortunately, yes. However, the deaths and harm caused to innocent civilians is an unintended consequence of war and does not, in and of itself, lead to saying that war is morally wrong.
The war in Afghanistan is being fought to save the lives of millions of innocent people around the world who might otherwise be victims of terrorists; it is being fought to free the millions of Afghani citizens from a theocratic regime that hangs seven-year-old boys as potential spies as happened in Afghanistan just 2 weeks ago. These are just causes for which the war is being fought; at the same time, if you bother to follow the news, you will hear that US and Allied troops are severely frustrated by the limitations placed on them in order to minimize civilian casualties, restrictions that make the possibility of winning the war much harder to bring about.
The seamless garment also falls apart when one considers that there is PROFOUND difference between an innocent person and a guilty person. The taking of any innocent life is morally repugnant; the taking of the life of a guilty person, particularly one who feels no remorse and who, in all likelihood, would kill again is not so repugnant. Though capital punishment is not being addressed fully here, it should be noted that the VAST majority of people on death row are there due to their choices and that some of them would be only too happy to add to the list of those whose lives they have taken.
Abortion, on the other hand and no matter how one attempts to justify it, is nothing less than the deliberate taking of innocent life. In the case of the mother you cite, there is not unintended consequence, rather the doctor deliberately chose to end the life of the unborn child. Is it right for me to kill a totally innocent person in order for me to live? If a gun was to my head and I was told that if I did not kill the very next person I see then I myself would be killed, would it be right for me to kill that next person? Would it rather not be far more praiseworthy, far more consistent with our beliefs about the sanctity of life, for me to sacrifice my life for the sake of the innocent?
Women whose lives are "endangered by the growing life within them", as you so clinically put it, give the ultimate testimony to the words of Our Lord, "Greater love has no man (or woman, in this case) than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends".
I note you omit Iraq where at
I note you omit Iraq where at least 100,000 innocent Iraqis were killed or maimed by fire. Where is the outrage against that behavior not even condemned by the hierarchy. Hypocrisy1, your name is Clint Green.
You are correct, o anonymous
You are correct, o anonymous person, that I did not include the War in Iraq in my discussion of the just war. Though I supported, strongly, President Bush's stated aims in Iraq, and though I believed, as did so many (including, I might add, most of our allies and the United Nations) that Iraq was in possession of WMDs, I have revised my position on this particular war. In hindsight, not only was the Iraq war a bad political move, it was also a war that should not have been fought morally.
I fail to see how my ommission of this war, in a discussion of just war, is hypocritical. Indeed, it would be seem to be entirely consistant. However, I should not expect logic in this instance; far easier to sling mud when one is conveniently "anonymous".
I'm gonna back you up here
I'm gonna back you up here Clint, because I too was totally snowed by Colin Powell's testimony before the UN. I think I took this personal experience further than you did though. I now firmly believe there is no such thing as a just war---unless the military industrial complex fights it amongst themselves and leaves the rest of us out of it.
Clint Green, the wife and
Clint Green, the wife and mother of four other children was going to die for sure and the fetus would have died anyway when the mother died.
You say the mother should have laid down her life for her friends. What friends are you talking about? For you? For the Bishop? For your conscience to feel good? For the sake of your beliefs it would have been "far more praiseworthy" for the mother to die? The mother's four children surely praise God their mother is not dead. That you or any Bishop in the Church do not praise the saving of the life of this mother speaks volumes of the hatred you and they have for the sanctity of life for this mother.
The questions you pose are irrelevant to this case. It seems, however, that you are holding a gun to many a mother's head with your freedom of conscience, while denying them their freedom of conscience and very right to life.
"It has effectively twisted
"It has effectively twisted the Commandment 'Not to Kill'" because the Commandment prohibits murder. How 'kill' came to be substituted for 'murder' is unknown, but it surely has provided a long trail of discussion. Ignore war for a second, and think of an armed burglar entering your home. Church teaching is that you are permitted to defend yourself. Take it to another level: would you condemn a police officer in the line of duty for shooting a suspect who was shooting at him? Sweeping generalizations are unhelpful.
The morality and legality of
The morality and legality of aborton are two separate things, given how abortion was legalized in the United States (mostly not through legislation). There is a narrow window where federal legislation might make a difference - however there has never been an effort by the "right to life community" to draft a bill that operates within that window and deals with the complexities such a law would raise (the police power to enforce the right to life and the tort rights of newly legal unborn persons - you can't go back to the days where abortion was banned as a medical procedure and doctors were fined - it has to be full up murder to kill a fetus who has been given legal personhood and full up malpractice to let one die in utero after that point).
Catholic legislators have no responsibility to support such a bill until it exists, however - and they have a responsibility to perfect it should it go too far.
"[T]here is only ONE
"[T]here is only ONE legitimate Catholic position: that abortion is morally wrong in every single circumstance."
You've described so-called "direct" abortions.
Rome, however, does approve so-called "indirect" abortions.
In a fallopian ectopic pregnancy, for instance, it's morally OK to remove baby *with* its section of tube (or the entire tube, for that matter), but it's not OK to slit the tube, remove baby, repair tube (for possible future pregnancy), and move on. Even if tube is healthy, the surgeon still must inflict damage on it in order to make the procedure morally OK according to Rome.
In either approach, it's known beforehand that baby will die. And, indeed, baby will die!
But we have invented this moral fiction that something is wrong with the fallopian tube. Rome has come up with a nice, convenient way to help us assuage our guilt at killing an unborn baby.
I bet baby would disagree with this hair-splitting from Rome: "Hey, Pope, I wanna' live! To hell with your moral fiction!!!"
An ectopic pregnancy can
An ectopic pregnancy can never get the needed nutrition to become a healthy child - or even to survive the pregnancy to viability. It has no claim on life or the life of its mother. Neither does a child who is destined to die due to fatal genetic anomolies or because the placenta is causing the death of the mother. You have no right to what you cannot physically attain. In the future, one might be able to salvage some of these difficult pregnancies with genetic therapies (made possible by stem cell research) or artificial uteri - but now ending the pregnancy is the only answer - even if it means direct abortion. If Catholic doctrine disagrees, it cannot be based on either natural or divine law, since God is merciful and wise - not some legalistic prig who would prefer we let a mother die unnecessarily.
Thanks for your insights
Thanks for your insights here. They make perfect sense.
As often happens when we
As often happens when we discuss sinfulness, we fail to distinguish the factors of mortal sin. Abortion is always wrong period. It can happen as an unintended consequence. For a sin to be mortal, it has to be a serious matter, we have to know it to be a serious matter, and we have to WANT to do it. If abortion happens as an unintended result, that sin cannot be mortal since the intent lacked the WANT to do a mortal sin.
Suppose you have a tall glass of iced tea and you put it down very near the edge of a table. In reaching to turn on a light, you inadvertantly pushed the glass off the edge of the table, getting important papers and the carpet wet. You certainly didn't intend to get the important papers and the carpet wet, but the papers and the carpet are just as wet as if you threw the ice tea glass to the floor.
Deacon, to clarify, do you
Deacon, to clarify, do you accept the church's traditional distinction between "direct" and "indirect" abortion?
I ask because with both direct and indirect abortions, e.g., tubal pregnancies, the doctor's intent is to save the woman's life, not to end baby's life. Baby poses a threat to its mother's life. In performing either direct or indirect abortion, the doctor is removing the threat (baby) to save a life. Whether performing direct or indirect abortion, doctor knows beforehand that baby will die (with tubal pregnancy, in particular, of course, it's a foregone conclusion that baby is going to die, either inside or outside its mother).
I read somewhere else that it was JPII who (more or less?) popularized using the word 'innocent' in describing the unborn child. However, as others have pointed out, the deranged axe-wielding guy charging toward you is also "innocent" (he's trying to kill Hitler and earn a lollipop for doing so). If you have a gun, you're going to eliminate the threat. If you can "sweet-talk" the deranged guy into not hurting/killing you, all the better, but your odds of succeeding are likely between 'slim and none'. Likewise, the enemy on the battlefield is de facto "innocent" although church teaching, per a fellow blogger, considers the enemy to be not innocent. (I've argued elsewhere that the enemy combatant is just as "innocent" as *his* enemy combatant, church teaching notwithstanding).
In all these scenarios --- unborn child, deranged guy, enemy combatant, we are truly dealing with how to protect oneself or another person against innocent human beings who unintentionally pose a threat to oneself or somebody else. If able, we relocate the threat (artificial womb, mental asylum, POW camp). If necessary, we eliminate it altogether. In none of these cases, though, is it one's intent to kill the person who is the threat. We do, however, have the right to self-defense. In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the woman is relying on the doctor to enable her self-defense.
Your thoughts, please. Thanks.
Both Fr. McBrien and Fr.
Both Fr. McBrien and Fr. Curran spend an awful lot of time defending themselves for being democrats. Which is really all this is, this has nothing to do with morality, the position of "religious freedom approach" wouldn't hold water in even the most introductory of moral theology courses.
The question is why spend all this energy defending abortion? There is something very sinister in these writings.
And somebody should tell Fr. McBrien that there are laws against lying.
What is most telling is the
What is most telling is the last paragraph, which shows that the Republicans believe that they are entitled to the support of the Church. Scary and temporary, since the GOP is about to become a minority party, due to its own extremism. The last straw will be their nomination of Sarah Palin in 2012, which is a prime example of using abortion as a wedge issue without even understanding all the ramifications of doing so. Palin could not explain her views on abortion policy to Katie Couric - even though opposing Roe v. Wade was her signature issue in running for the Wassila City Council.
The stance of the bishops on this issue, particularly where it concerns American constitutional law, is similarly uninformed. Indeed, the best minds on the pro-life side ended up endorsing Barack Obama on the very pages of this newspaper. Two others were appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush and then refused to overturn Roe.
If Roberts, Scalia, Kmeic and Cafardi - the most prominent pro-life lawyers of their generation - all stand against overturning Roe, the right to life movement is in bad shape by continuing to insist upon this strategy. Indeed, this fact alone shows that the focus on overturning Roe and demonizing Democrats who don't agree is entirely for electoral purposes, with no chance of success in the Courts.
(shaking head) And, thus, we
(shaking head) And, thus, we have even more words on a subject that is becoming more than tiresome. The small percentage of abortions that arise from rape, incest and malformation of the fetus, and about which we could have useful discussion, is overwhelmed by the selfish use of abortion as a means of birth control. Admittedly being judgemental, the use of abortion as birth control is horrid and can never, ever be justified; and women who avail themselves of this method are wretched.
As for the three situations listed above, while I can buy into the pain and sorrow of those women, hooray for the heroic who nevertheless continue their pregnancies; and for those who dip to abortion to solve their problem, compassion and love.
Abortion as birth control is
Abortion as birth control is quite a bit rarer than abortion and birth control due to economic reasons. If the Church - and the conservatives within it - were to work for a tax supported living wage in the form of a refundable federal child credit of $500/month/child, a matching state credit and a reasonable $12/hr living wage, I am quite sure there would be no abortions or birth control for economic reasons - especially if students with families were paid a minimum wage to go to school and had access to the same child credits that every family would have (both parents).
Of course, then you all talk about Socialism and how we must be protected from it (even though a fair and living wage have been part of the Magisterium for over 125 years).
Perhaps we can take the
Perhaps we can take the billions the government spends every year on direct and indirect subsidy of abortion and use that for medical treatment for mothers and care for babies? Great idea, but the Democrats will never go for it. The get billions in campaign contributions and other funding from abortionists.
Wow where to begin? Well I
Wow where to begin? Well I guess with the clear understanding of why Curran's license to teach theology in a Catholic University was pulled. But let's examine.
"Therefore, being "right" on all other elements of Catholic social teaching can never excuse being "wrong" on abortion."
Exactly correct. No other Catholic teaching causes the intrinsic evil of the death of another human being. Even Capital punishment has some extreme instances when it can be utilized. No such exemption exists for abortion. Plus there is no reason to think that the lack of abortion is the root cause of any other social issue that can be addressed. There are always alternatives from adoption on down that can ameliorate any problems caused by the lack of abortion. There is no alternative to the death of a baby.
"Since Catholic teaching recognizes that in theory we cannot be certain when the soul is infused, Catholics have to be careful not to claim apodictically that abortion, even of an early embryo, is murder."
Well of course this is just not true as the link below to the teachings of the Catholic Church will show. This statement might have been more correctly stated as, "Since some dissidents from Catholic teaching are looking for loopholes to justify abortion they have claimed that we do not know when the soul is infused." That of course ignores Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,". But when has Scripture been a hindrance to McBrien's or Curran's theology?
"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
"For them, "pro-choice" is not the same as pro-abortion."
Sure it is. They just want to have their cake and eat it too. They lack the courage to stand up and do what is right, or they never believed abortion is wrong in the first place. They are trying to satisfy both sides of the political spectrum and in doing so only really placate the pro choice crowd. The Pro life group sees this for what it is.
"The Catholic Church also teaches that artificial contraception, masturbation, and lying are intrinsically evil, but no one today claims that there should be a law that criminalizes such acts"
Did McBrien really put lying and masturbation on the same level as the death of an infant? Surely this abysmal comparison is so clear to anyone that it requires no further explanation.
"That pressure, the archbishop disclosed, came from operatives of the Republican Party."
Wow what evidence, an unknown victim, and unidentified villains. Seems convincing to me. I am sure some readers will see this as clearly as if it were on a video camera.
kscrawler unfortunately for
kscrawler unfortunately for just one of your positions, the Church does teach masturbation is a mortal sin. From Catholic answers:
"Being a "grave moral disorder" and "an intrinsically and gravely disordered action" the Church teaches that even a single act of masturbation can theoretically send a person to Hell, if two additional factors are present:
The person must commit the act with full knowledge of the sin and of its seriousness.
"It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent."
It may be reasonable to most people that there is no equivalence between abortion and masturbation, but the fact is both acts will send one to hell, both are an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. You can quibble that the word evil is added for abortion, but the fact remains an unrepentant masturbator will join the mother who chooses abortion in the flames of hell. This according to Catholic teaching. We can all thank Aquinas for this equivalence because in his world view sperm was all that mattered as it was the entire seed and woman was the plowed field. The OT has a couple of verses which support Aquinas's view of conception. Pity the poor boy who has a wet dream--or the poor nine year old girl who finds herself pregnant from incest. Catholic sexual theology can be very tough on innocent children.
the Bishops have said that a
the Bishops have said that a cancerous uterus can be removed even if she is pregnant so what does that mean and i still have not heard the term ectopic pregnancy mentioned. One out of five pregnancies end in an abortion (medical term) such as an incomplete abortion, missed abortion, blighted ovum, or ectopic plus a few more where are we.
I will not watch a woman bleed to death with an ectopic pregnancy which was what happened when i was young. Ectopic pregnancies are sometimes difficult to dx. even today.
Even with the argument that
Even with the argument that the bishops put forward, their credibility is greatly compromised. They are consistent in their unwillingness to stand up to the Republican party on other issues that go against The Church's teaching. It is as if they are saying "as long as you are pro-life, you can sin in any other area without consequence. We will continue to give you cover and support you". This reminds me of the Faustian bargain that The Church so often have made with dictators around the world - as long as they were anti-communist, The Church would look the other way, no matter how great other human rights violations were.
If the leaders of The Church want to support the pro-life platform of the GOP, they can also show some courage and challenge the GOP in other areas and begin to trust the Holy Spirit and teach their flock the full teachings of The Church, even when it goes against the party of their choice.
I just don't see the bishops being able to rebuild their creditability until they begin to preach more fully and more honestly about what The Church teaches.
"If the leaders of The Church
"If the leaders of The Church want to support the pro-life platform of the GOP, they can also show some courage and challenge the GOP in other areas and begin to trust the Holy Spirit and teach their flock the full teachings of The Church, even when it goes against the party of their choice."
Really it is amazing that someone without access to the internet like you are able somehonw to post on this forum. I say you must not have access to the internet because what else would explain you missing the fact that the Bishops are in opposition to the GOP on the following issues:
Health Care - if the funding for abortion had been removed the USCCB was for the health care plan
Immigration - The USCCB is in direct opposition to the GOP on immigration and amnesty issues.
Death Penalty - The USCCB is indirect opposition on this isue as well.
If anyone has a one issue focus it is you. You cannot see past the abortion issue to see that the bishops and the GOP are in direct opposition on several major issues.
And the USCCB did not lift a
And the USCCB did not lift a finger to move one Republican vote to the pro-immigrant funding or pro-reform side. If JUST ONE GOP Senator had said he would vote for cloture, the USCCB's last minute concerns could have been dealt with. Clearly, Doerflinger and Co. were way over their heads on this debate. They did not "have game."
Kscrawler, I think you missed
Kscrawler, I think you missed my point. It was not about the bishops being in complete agreement with the Republican party. It is true that they are in opposition in all of the areas that you mentioned. But, it is that they do not promote that opposition or teach their flocks the teaching of the Church on these matters. Few in the pews know the Church's position on the Iraq war or any of the issues you mention. But most all know the Church's position on abortion and gay marriage. Having some information on the internet and teaching and promoting the Church's teachings are too often very, very far apart. I think it is wrong to suggest that they are the same.
So, stating one's position on
So, stating one's position on a web page on the internet, is the same as standing up to the GOP? You really believe that?
Interestingly that 25 years
Interestingly that 25 years ago, when I was first writing a critique of Charles Curran as a "Catholic" theologian, he was (ca. 1984) still recognizing that abortion was a distinctive issue. From what Richard McBrien summarizes above, clearly CC has now decided to adopt all the feints and subterfuges to make sure abortion does not "trump" all the appropriate politically correct positions adored by darlings of the left, who cannot otherwise convince their friends that abortion is the CIVIL rights issue of our day. Yes, Richard and Charles, the slicing/dicing/dissection/quasi-infanticide murder of 4,000 children per day every day in the United States does trump single payer hospital plans, marching against ICBMs, or choosing the properly picked lettuce for your table. Those children are dead. I must also admit it amazes me that revisionist "theologians," who otherwise have no use for Thomas Aquinas, emphatically continue to try to infuse life into the "delayed infusion" idea that Joseph Donceel tried to hawk in the early 1970s, which Germain Grisez has definitively refuted, and which is clearly invalidated by modern genetics and embryology. But I guess any straw should be grasped when it's necessary to move abortion off center stage. Finally, 35 years too late, the American bishops have made abortion the issue it SHOULD be, long after we have suffered the likes of "Catholics" like William Brennan, Mario Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, Chris Dodd, Pat Moynihan, Kennedy Townsend, et al., who, confronted with stepping up to plate and defending the most helpless, have instead chosen to tow the NOW/PPFA line and would like to have it both ways--being good Democrats and "good" Catholics, supported by the ecclesiastical version of Lenin's useful idiots in the "common good" crowd.
Pro-aborts always accuse
Pro-aborts always accuse Catholics of being "anti-science" but yet the opposite is true. Just as in your above example they conveniently leave out scientific fact, they do that in almost every circumstance. They deny that an unborn child at any stage of development is a distinct human being. They constantly state that teaching children or anyone for that matter about the development of a baby in the womb is a political position. They freaked out when actual size dolls of an unborn baby were distributed to high school kids because apparently that was ideological. Imagine that, scientific fact of the development of a human person is now ideological. They fight tooth and nail against ultrasound technology because it gives 100 percent proof to that which they deny with all their being--that the child in the womb is not a clump of cells but a real live human being. When people see the scientific evidence, they most often choose not to murder their child--which leads to less profits for Big Abortion and less donations from Big Abortion to the Democrats. That, and the original plan of Planned Parenthood is not carried out--the elimination of blacks and the poor from the face of the earth.
First off science has
First off science has absolutely nothing to say about the soul. Science has a great deal to say about neurological development and neural feedback. Speculation on the time of ensoulment is just that speculation.
Humanity has many different understandings of 'soul'. Some of those understandings would say that birth is a contract between the new incarnation and the mother and that like all contracts it's a free choice on both sides. This view is very much supported by Jesus's own Incarnational story. Mary was given a choice to accept Jesus's choice, forming a free partnership whose goal was His development in His human experience. It's also very interesting to me that Joseph was kept out of the loop until Mary made her decision.
Perhaps Catholics would do better to meditate on these particular lessons in Jesus's own incarnation.
"Pro-aborts", as you call
"Pro-aborts", as you call them, don't generally accuse catholics as being anti-science:, they only reject the usual pro-life rhetoric pretending to be scientific, while in fact it is mainly ideology. Embryology deals with human DNA, stages of development, etc., and not with ensoulment or when human life as understood by, for instance Christians, begins. Embryology is competent in stating that a zygote, a blastula or gastrula possessing human DNA can scientifically be expected to become a human being in terms of anatomy, morphology,physiology, etc. This is not to say that science has the final word about what constitutes a human being. Anything that goes beyond what science is able teach us, is not science and should not be used as if it is science by for instance pro-lifers. But on the other hand it should neither be considered as irrelevant. Science has much to teach us, but so do theology and philosophy (here irrelevantly referred to as "ideology"). We need both science and ideology, but they shouldn't get mixed up (as for instance creationists do when talking about evolution). We also need a different "language" to talk about this issue, but that's another story.
Correction! In my reply to
Correction!
In my reply to this comment, I somewhere "irrelevantly" referred to theology and philosophy as an ideology. I meant to use the word "irreverently". Sorry about any confusion.
Embryology clearly shows that
Embryology clearly shows that ensoulment cannot occur until gastrulation, since non-human hybrids don't die until that point. Unless heaven or limbo is filled with the products of such unions, pre-gastrulation ensoulment is a non-starter. According to an Aristotelean view of the soul as the body's controling life force - it would seem that such a thing is necessary and present after gastrulation. The development of the blastocyst before this point shows no such directed development, however. Those who say an additional soul is added at twinning, by the way, are equivocating.
Science has nothing
Science has nothing legitimately to say about ensoulment. Science is not competent in dealing with what the catholic church teaches about the soul. To appeal to science to argue "pro" or "con" in matters of the soul is totally irrelevant. I believe in the existence of a soul, but that belief is not based on science but entirely on my Christian faith. Science is able to determine if a zygote or a later multi-cellular entity is human (i.e. if it has human DNA), but science is not competent to say if that entity has a human soul (i.e. if it possess something beyond or in addition to human DNA).
Theology and philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) are competent in dealing with soul and ensoulment, science is not (even though admitting that science has its own foundational philosophical a priori's).
A soldier is employed as a
A soldier is employed as a sniper. He sees an enemy pop his head up and shoots and kills him. A life was deliberately taken. Does the Church condemn that? Self-defense? In a stuation where the mother will surely die if the threat to her life which is the unborn child why isn't the abortion as much an act of self-defense as the sniper shooting the unsuspecting enemy?
Why? Because the soldier is
Why? Because the soldier is not acting in self-defense, he is acting legitimately to repel aggression (which is why there are principles governing when a war is just). But unborn children--despite the mentality of the "feminists" that brought us Roe v. Wade--is not an aggressor and not an enemy.
A child's right to life is
A child's right to life is contingent on its ability to use it. One does not have a right to something one can never attain - so a child who is doomed because the pregnancy will kill the mother before viability - or because he contains a genetic abnormality that is not survivable - cannot be said to have a right to life. Making that determination is not "playing God" but facing fact and in such cases, ending the pregnancy as soon as possible is probably best (after baptising the child through the uterine wall).
Checkmate.
Fifty years ago Karol
Fifty years ago Karol Wojtyla, in Love and Responsibility, argued that there are essentially two postures one can adopt towards another: one can love another, or one can use him. Recognizing that one HAS rights is to love him; claiming that rights are "contingent on ability to use" is use. What constitutes "use?" What constitutes "ability?" And who will determine it? And should ANYBODY ELSE except the one whose life it is be making such determinations?
Love another, or use
Love another, or use another.
So self-defense against an innocent human being is to "use another"?
Unborn baby threatening mother's life is innocent --- but dangerous! The aggressive, deranged axe-wielder coming toward you is innocent --- but dangerous! The enemy combatant charging toward you with fixed bayonette is innocent --- but dangerous!
In all of these scenarios, the goal of the person being threatened is to remove the threat, not necessarily to kill an innocent human being. If possible, we remove baby from mother and transfer it to specialized care. If possible, we subdue the axe-wielder and send him to a mental hospital. If possible, we capture the enemy combatant and send him to a POW camp.
Unfortunately, baby might/will die after removal from inside its mother. Axe-wielder might get shot (perhaps even killed). Enemy soldier might get shot (perhaps even killed). All of these cases are tragic since innocent human beings might/will get killed by others merely defending themselves. The "killer" can be a doctor, the police, or a comrade.
If life in all its complexity could just follow the moral law as taught by Rome....
But life is not black and white while "the law" apparently is.
A round hole (life) and a square peg (law).
Not a good fit.
The case against abortion &
The case against abortion & assisted suicide can be made from a purely secular perspective in the USA. The bishops need not bring any Catholic theology to their opposition to Roe V Wade which is a draconian legislation.
In the USA we have a founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which specifically speaks of a right to life. The Constitution is to be seen in light of the Declaration. So even though there is nothing in the Constitution which speaks of a right to life, it certainly is implied by reason of the fact that the Constitution is based on the Declaration. So we have established the right to life in the law.
Now if there is such a thing as the right to life, it must go back to the beginning of the existence of the person, namely the point at which the person begins, i.e, conception. This is not to say that the initial embryo is a person or that this embryo per se has a right to life but rather that this thing we call the right to life begins at the beginning of the person's existence.
Another way to say this is that the right to life extrapolates back to the beginning to cover the formative stage as well as the "life" itself. If we did not extrapolate this right back to the beginning then the person's right to life would be subject to another person's decision (such as abortion) which would deny the right to life to the person. This right is strictly between God & each individual person; it allows for no intermediaries. "Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness."
You assume we grant you your
You assume we grant you your premise:
the existence of the person, namely the point at which the person begins, i.e, conception.
The thing is--- most Americans in fact, don't.
The word we're looking for here is "pluralism."
One last thing, as I remember
One last thing, as I remember it, one of the issues that was used to hang Curran out to dry was not abortion but a reasonable position on masturbation. That could not be allowed. It seems extremely ironic now, given what we now know about the sexual orientation of many priests and of the problem of sexual abuse of minors. The generation prior to this one was even more abused with confessing all sexual thoughts and actions, however slight. Given that the priesthood has not really changed that much in 100 years (and if anything, is now more accountable), I cringe when I think of all the opportunities for hazard that presented themselves during the "good old days" of American Catholicism.
More smoke and screens and
More smoke and screens and double speak from McBrien, trying to defend the undefensible. We "cannot be sure when the soul is infused"?? ALL life is created by God who "Knew us BEFORE He formed us in our mother's womb". That means that God willed us into being way before we were even at the zygote stage.
Nobody has the right to destroy any human life that God has so carefully fashioned no matter at what stage of development. What utter arrogance to practically tell God that He made a mistake by snuffing a life and stopping a human heart. Mc.Brien steps right out of a Planned Parenthood textbook with his hypocritical distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion. A baby is just as dead if aborted by a pro-choicer as by a pro-abortion--a skunk by any other name would smell just the same.
The disingenuous question that the Catholic Church considers contraception, masturbation and lying intrinsically evil but there's no law against them, is behond the pale. We are all sinners but there are degrees of sinning. The killing of an unprotected, utterly defenseless human baby is a hideous thing no matter from what point of view you look at it. Robbing a bank is not the same as killing someone even if both are criminal acts. New technology is proving more and more that abortion is based on lies. An embryo is not just a blob of tissues but has its own DNA, different from that of the mother, with a complexity that boggles the mind. Even if there were any doubts as to when the soul is infused, isn't better to err on the side of caution? If you're driving at night and come upon a package on the road that seems to contain a baby or even an animal, would you drive over it because you cannot see properly from your car and are unable to jugde what's in it?
There are no other legitimate Catholic positions on the abortion law-- other than overturn it-- and science is supporting the stance of the Catholic Church. Mc.Brien is on the far political left so he sees everything through political lenses. Pro-lifers in the trenches don't care about political parties, they side with the Bishops on abortion because it's time to restore justice and the right to life for ALL created beings. Even our constitution promises it.
Castellina I understand your
Castellina I understand your notion of God willing us all into existence before we were concieved is important in your argumentation. But there are implications to this that I wonder if you've really considered. In this willing by God, does this include the circumstances of conception? Is God willing a nine year old incest victim to carry his creation? Or was that soul just kind of hanging around and got stuck with this sort of conception? Or maybe it's that God knows some of us, but not all of us? Or is God just plain indifferent to the circumstances of one's conception and birth?
The Church teaches there are no degrees of hell, so making statements that differentiate some mortal sins as less evil than others is pointless. Intentional masturbation sends you to hell exactly like intentional abortion. So says Church teaching. Your wishing this fact away doesn't make it so. As a commenter mentioned above, Fr. Curran suggested this teaching needed changing and paid the price for his opinions because masturbation is viewed from the slippery slope argument. Give in on masturbation and all of the sexual teachings are open for discussion and that of course would call into question the whole notion of papal infallibility. Can't be having that.
Abortion is too often an authority issue hiding behind morality. The question then becomes who has authority over the reproductive system of a woman? The woman herself, or the society she's born into. It isn't God, or God would have taken choice totally out of the picture. The story of Mary shows He honored her right to choose.
One cannot have a right that
One cannot have a right that one has no hope of exercising. A child doomed to die because of a genetic defect that will kill it before birth does not have a claim on extending the pregnancy to dangerous territory for the mother. A child who would kill its mother because the pregnancy would not be survivable for either has no claim on life.
Colkoch1, Your comments bring
Colkoch1,
Your comments bring to mind a story about St. Augustine. Apparently the Saint was having a difficult time coming to grips with the concept of the Trinity as he wanted to undestand it intellectually. One day, as he was mulling over it while walking on a beach, his attention was drawn to a little boy who had dug a hole in the sand and was running back and forth from the ocean with a shell filled with ocean water. To the Saint's inquiry the boy replied that he wanted to transfer the ocean to the hole in the sand. Instantly St. Augustine understood that he wanted to do pretty much the same, expecting to understand the infinite mind of God with his own very finite mind. So to your questions: Who can possibly fathom God's infinite wisdom and His purposes? There are a lot of injustices that to our human mind make no sense, including the ones that you allude to. But that's where our faith comes in, trusting that God will bring good out of bad and justice out of injustice. No soul is unknown to God since God is the all-knowing Creator, no circumstance of conception escapes God either, for the same reason. The idea of some souls who are "just hanging around and get stuck" in a tragic conception and therefore are (if I understand you correctly) somehow children of a lesser God (deserving of abortion, maybe?) flies in the face of God's love and justice and His omni potence... So the bottom line is that we have to trust in God's actions, no matter how absurd they may seem. It's the eternal question of "Why did God let that happen" of human beings confronted by tragedies that seem sensless. Baby killing is never justified-- even though we humans can and do rationalize; we have no right to determine who lives and who dies because we don't have "all the pieces of the puzzle". Only God does.
(We have a sitting President who seems to have been conceived in less that ideal circumstances).
As for your question about mortal sin, the Church does speak about different degrees of gravity, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraph 1858 (page 455) says:"...The gravity of (mortal) sin is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger etc...
I do agree with you that "abortion is...hiding behind morality" even though for different reasons. I believe abortion is not ONLY a moral ussue but also a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, very much as slavery was. Roe vs. Wade was one of the biggest miscarriages (pardon the pun) of justice ever perpetrated on defenseless human beings. Pro-abortion people would like to make it only a moral issue (as in: "don't push your religion on me") but the woman's human rights do not trump the constitutional right of the child to live--and it IS a human child-- at all stages-- not a bunch of cells. You say God has no authority over a woman's reproductive system otherwise He would have taken the "choice out of the picture". God never takes choices away from us-- we may choose to commit evil or to do good, to follow His Commandments and the teachings of the Church or to have it our own way. God respects our free will but we WILL have to answer for all the choices we make. God did give Mary the right to choose BEFORE our Lord was conceived in her womb, not after.
Thank you for your comments.
Post new comment