Pope: Catholic politicians must conform legislation to Church doctrine

posted at 9:55 pm on March 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

Is there even one Catholic member of Congress who’s in sync with the Church up and down the line? Even Scalia, who’s rumored to be a member of Opus Dei, takes a heretical view on capital punishment.

Pope Benedict XVI strongly reasserted Tuesday the church’s opposition to abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage, saying that Roman Catholic politicians were “especially” obligated to defend the church’s stance in their public duties.

“These values are nonnegotiable,” the pope wrote in a 130-page “apostolic exhortation” issued in Rome that represents a distillation of opinion from a worldwide meeting of bishops at the Vatican in 2005.

“Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce laws inspired by values grounded in human nature,” the pope wrote…

Those issues, Benedict wrote, include “respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built on marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.”

Plenty of people we could call out here — Pelosi, first and foremost, and of course Fat Teddy, whose support for abortion at this point is the least of his sins.

But there’s a more newsworthy target right now, isn’t there? Heh.

Update: Sydney Carton thinks there’s a distinction here between Church doctrine and “values grounded in human nature.” I don’t think so, at least not in the context of the moral issues the Pope has in mind.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Enrique: “Abortions are socially responsible.”

I’m sorry, but if you believe that, you’re hopeless. Only the most militant pro-choicers out there think abortions are socially responsible. Normal, everyday people look at them as tragic at best, and murder at worst. You can marginalize yourself out of this conversation by saying those things, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Your social darwinist views of people who have abortions is fundamentally at odds with treating people with dignity. You may claim that an incarcerated adult has inalienable rights, but you seem to have no moral foundation for saying WHY they have those rights. If one were to take your other statements at face value, it’s easy to imagine you in favor of different rights for different types of people: elites having more rights than the poor, for instance. In no place in your condemning posts on the responsibility of abortion is there anywhere close to a gleam of mercy for those who have abortions, or for the dead child, or for the fact that Western Europe is aborting itself into cultural suicide right now (allowing Muslims with many children to take over). Your policies are suicidal.

Sydney Carton on March 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM


Dude. You can’t really be serious (I’m afraid that you are.)

We’re to abort children likely to be impoverished to avoid that “burden” on society?

I don’t know where to start.

There’s the notion there that we could, by your utilitarian logic, simply do away with any member of society who doesn’t meet some arbitrary standard of benefit to the society.

There’s the incredibly reletivistic notion of what constitutes poverty.

How about the breathtaking notion that–and this is granting you the world by not addressing the horrific nature of abortion in the first place–the poor ought to be given their own voice in whether they get to exist or not?

Or the statistical waste of those who would have succeeded against the odds, who were sacrificed because their odds were low (again, I’m accepting the vile assertion that aborting them is acceptable.)

A modest proposal you make, indeed.

TexasDan on March 14, 2007 at 5:01 PM

So, if I don’t follow everything the church says and believes, I’m not 100% Catholic? By that logic, my family (who’s been Catholic as far as documented history can go) should’ve hidden Nazis during WW2. That wasn’t the liberal American Church, that was the Vatican.

Ooh, or how about when the Vatican many years ago, sold bulls, forgiving the person for his/her sins?

Oh, and by the same logic, we should also be welcoming to illegals, as they are just people looking for a better life.

Amerpundit, et. al.:
If you are looking for answers to legitimate questions regarding Catholicism, by all means, ask away. There are plenty of intelligent people here to answer them. If, however, you have only insults and attempts at one-liner “gotcha!” questions, expect that others will find it uncivil, repulsive, petty, and thoughtless.

Clearly, the point to take from this news is that, as someone already mentioned, Papa Bene is asking “Catholic” politicians to put ’em on the glass. It is not Rome or the Vatican trying to establish a global Caliphate.

So Pelosi can be publicly for abortion so long as she’s also privately for it? That can’t be what he means.

You’re right, Allah. In a way at least. These comments from the Pope are essentially a call back to the things Catholics believe in (I’m kind of with you on what he literally said. I think it’s kind of to-may-to to-mah-to because as far as I can tell, there is no functional difference). If Pelosi continues to introduce and support legislation that goes against Catholic beliefs but still claims to be Catholic, she should be recognized as unintelligent, unfaithful, or a liar and fraud.

PaisleyCow on March 14, 2007 at 5:02 PM


So, your pro-abortion argument really isn’t that “unborn children” would cause poverty or hardships for the unwed teen mother like you said here:

Wouldn’t there be less poverty if there were more abortions? . . . there are plenty of times when terminating a pregnancy should be encouraged, especially in the case of underage, unmarried girls. If a teenage girl has a baby out of wedlock, her chances of being poor for the rest of her life are dramatically increased, right?

And it’s not that these unwanted “unborn children” actually “damage” our society as you argued here:

What’s important is the damage to society wrought by the birth of unwanted children.

Or, that our society (and teenage girls) should not have to live with the consequences of a “bad decision” as you argued here:

This child is very likely to grow up to be a criminal and welfare recipient. Why should society bear the costs of the bad choices of teenage girls?

But rather, your argument is that “unborn children” have no rights because they are the “property” of their mothers:

I don’t believe unborn children have rights – they are the property of the mother.

And, if the Supreme Court decides that “unborn children” actually have constitutional rights once they make it through the second-trimester, then you would be against abortion for those “unborn children” who make it into the third tri-mester? I mean, because your REAL argument is all about whether inalienable rights apply or not, right?

On the contrary, I’m opposed to the death penalty. In my view, an incarcerated adult has certain inalienable rights in the U.S . . . I don’t believe unborn children have rights – they are the property of the mother. At birth, all the rights of U.S. citizenship commence. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think “birth” is a good place to draw it.

You are aware, I assume, that the holding in Roe v. Wade was that after a fetus became “viable” the government had a compelling interest in protecting the life of that unborn child (that even an unborn child had “rights” at that point), right?

So, if in the next year the Supreme Court decides that advancements in medical science have made a fetus who makes it past the first tre-mester “viable” and that such unborn children have “rights”, then you would be all for outlawing abortion after the first tre-mester because that “line” would have been drawn there?

And, of course, you probably wouldn’t have had a problem with slavery, considering that slaves were deemed (by our courts!) to be the “property” of their owners and without any rights?

Maybe you should try another argument?

Fatal on March 14, 2007 at 5:10 PM

So Lawrence, which part of my intro was insulting. The being a vet, raised catholic or no use for organized religion?

rayvet on March 14, 2007 at 11:43 AM

I quote you again:

As a veterinarian that was raised Catholic (I have no use for organized religion at this point in my life thank you), …

rayvet on March 14, 2007 at 8:20 AM

The fact that you have no use for organized religion has nothing to do with your position on this topic. This is nothing more than injecting into the conversation a subtle spit in the eye of those of us who do have use for it. Arguing that it isn’t a slight doesn’t make it so. Arguing that I’m not smart enough to know the difference is just being condescending on your part.

Lawrence on March 14, 2007 at 5:53 PM

ameripundit- The Church says we should welcome illegals..As I told my priest, we do have many Catholic outlets for them in Mexico, there is no need for them to be rewarded(condoning their illegal actions) for placing themselves before(cutting in line) another one of God’s children…

Pam on March 14, 2007 at 8:04 PM

As I told my priest, we do have many Catholic outlets for them in Mexico, there is no need for them to be rewarded(condoning their illegal actions) for placing themselves before(cutting in line) another one of God’s children…

Pam on March 14, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Common sense, Pam. Works for me. I’ll have to remember to use it on my own priest. ;) You can be just as Catholic in Mexico as in America.

Connie on March 14, 2007 at 8:28 PM

This thread should have a red meat photo since there is over 100 comments at this time.

The Pope is not telling people how to vote or what laws to enact. He’s telling you how you should live you life and treat your fellow man, which is something every Pope has done throughout history.

RedinBlueCounty on March 14, 2007 at 9:43 PM

“the Pope commanding HIS followers”? I don’t know about you but in my church the only person we follow is Christ.

calirighty on March 14, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I had a baptist minister who did this to me for a while too.

It’s ok. Blindly following is the first step.

See? I can judge you too. Now we’re equal.

It’s cool.

Ringmaster on March 14, 2007 at 10:08 PM