www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion

After the Pope had his say, the Vatican has edited his off-the-cuff remarks. The USCCB website news area carries both stories, with the correction at the top.

Pope speaks.
Vatican corrects.
Mexican bishops still studying whether they did, in fact, excommunicate anybody. Right now the're not sure.
Mexican politician says he doesn't give a r**'* a**!
Guess it never really happened!

Actually, I think the Pope chose the moment deliberately, spoke the truth, and now it's up to our bishops to do their part. Another Regensburg moment.

Yeah, politics has been his game from day one. Anywhere impressions count more than facts and appearances more than truth is where he wants to be!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

[I wrote a stupid post, which I have now deleted.]

It will be very disappointing if there is no anti-abortion candidate by the November 2008 election.

-- John

There are a few Republican abortionist politicians who present themselves as Catholic - Susan Collins of Maine is one that I can think of, tom ridge was another, but the vast majority of them are Democrats.

Bishop Bruskewitz and Archbishop Burke are the only two that I have seen take a stand. Nobody else.

It isn't that I pass myself off as sinless - God knows I'm not. I don't go to Communion if I think I have sinned seriously - or a lot. I just want to hear our Bishops tell the pols that enough is enough. They spoke against the arms race in the 1980s and they speak about immigration now.

Abortion....silence.

I think that the Holy Father hasn't been as authoritarian as many had the image of him being or wanted him to be. The whole "More Catholic then the Pope " phenomenon

I do think there should be a consistant Pro-Life call from the American bishops (and I think they do this) that not only is abortion to be considered by politicians but there position on the culture of death in Capital punishment and war and weaponry.

I am not fond of capital punishment. However, I don't see it the same way as abortion. It isn't the same thing.

Nor do I like war and weaponry, but I see the need for it.

Dear Mr. Clean,

It IS the same thing. It's just easier in the public eye to justify doing away with someone who has committted atrocities against the community, local or global.

There are times when it becomes evident and apparent that war is necessary, but this never diminishes it's evil.

Bill

Or, if they condemn abortion, they do nothing else. No excommunications. Can't someone in the Church crack down on Catholics --especially Catholic politicians-- who do not uphold the Church's teaching on abortion? I can see turning a blind eye toward dissent on certain other issues, but turning a blind eye on abortion? That is turning a blind eye toward killing a little kid!

But, it seems that the candidates for U.S. President in 2008 may well all be pro-abortion.

So, is it a sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Is it a sin to vote for them: not for their pro-abortion position but despite their pro-abortion position ?

-- John

Disagree. Capital punishment and war are not the same as abortion.

I agree with Mr. Clean. Ref: CCC 2263-2267, 2308-2310. Abortion is always wrong. War and capital punishment can be acceptable, even necessary.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

Dear Friends,

I have three items to share here.

1) This argument put forth by MarkosC and Mr. Clean, with all due respect to my brothers, has never made sense to me. It is philosophically inconsistent.

This does not make sense to me- if something is morally wrong, it is wrong, even if it is justified in another context. For those situations in which war and capital punishment are wrong, are they not simply wrong? How are they less wrong, because there exist other situations in which they may be justified?

In other words, how can war and capital punishment be less wrong than abortion in the situations in which they are not permissable, because in other situations they are permissable?

It seems to me that at least in those situations in which war and capital punishment are not permissable, they are just as grave as abortion. They take human life made in the image of God.

2) I want to suggest to people that the Pro-Life movement to end abortion will never ultimately prevail unless Pro-life people are sensitive to other issues too. We can argue all day long to we are blue in the face, that the unborn should have the first consideration, and should trump all other issues. We can look upon others who do not agree with this as immoral, selfish or calloused. But the question is, will abortion end if that is all we care about, and make important? I do not believe it will. We have to appeal to other concerns people have. People are worried about many other things, they are losing their middle class status.

We may be right, but we will ultimately lose, and we will not end up ending abortion and saving babies.

3) I have never voted for anyone in my life because they were prochoice. I have voted over the years for both prolife and prochoice candidates, in the case of the latter, in spite of the prochoice stance. But I cannot give politicians a free pass on everthing else.

There are some politicians who in my view, have political views a little left of Attila the Hun, but they are prolife. I can't vote for them.

4)If I was a politician, I would be consistently prolife, and I would favor ending abortion through legislation. But I am not running.

Because they aren't, in and of themselves, wrong. Purpose is extremely important in determining right and wrong. The sections of the CCC I referenced explain this in detail.

If a duly constituted authority decides to kill someone because that is the only way that person can be kept from gravely harming society, then it must do so. If a duly constituted authority must summon all its men to go fight people who if left unchecked would go on a killing spree, then it must do so.

None of these are anywhere near the same thing as killing someone out of passion, pillaging a country for money, or killing a child because you don't want it.

MakosC:

I appreciate this, this is a better explanation than I have heard in the past. This does make more sense, especially with the examples you used.

I believe that we need to end abortion and also support a consistent life ethic as Brian mentions above, keeping in mind what MarkosC has shared about purpose and intent for protecting society.


Blessings,

Lance

QUOTE:
"If a duly constituted authority decides to kill someone because that is the only way that person can be kept from gravely harming society, then it must do so. If a duly constituted authority must summon all its men to go fight people who if left unchecked would go on a killing spree, then it must do so."


May I offer a scenario. If a person or persons are met in the act of perpetuating harm to members of society and the only way to stop the perpetrator(s) is to kill them then I can see the justification in taking a life.

If such persons are apprehended, incarcerated and rendered harmless by separating them from society do we still find it permissible to take their lives at a later date in retribution for their crimes?

Bill