Vatican official calls Democrats “the party of death”
posted at 2:10 pm on October 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The elevation of Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI has brought a new assertiveness to the Roman Catholic Church, especially at the intersection of politics and life issues. The new prefect of the Vatican Supreme Court, the former Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, warned in an interview with an Italian newspaper that the Democratic Party is well on its way to becoming the “party of death” in the United States. Burke called for greater discipline within the American church for holding Catholic politicians accountable for their actions:
Vatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. But now that the Vatican’s highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.
Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.
He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.”
Benedict chose Burke for a reason. He wants a closer focus on the way Catholics handle issues of life, especially abortion, in the public square. The church spent most of the last three decades quietly backing away from the notion of politicians who claim to be practicing Catholics and yet support abortions, which the church doctrine rejects so forcefully that it is a de facto ex-communicating event. Burke led the charge on this in 2004 during the presidential campaign when he openly called for John Kerry’s bishop to deny him the Eucharist.
Of course, politicians do not have to remain in the Catholic Church; it’s a completely voluntary association. If they disagree with the foundational doctrines of the church, of which opposition to abortion is a key tenet, then it behooves both the politican and the church to facilitate that separation. The silence from the American bishops over the last few decades has been seen as a tacit acquiescence to the arguments made by Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden that abortion is just one of a number of “social justice” issues, and that Catholics can remain in good standing by trading abortion support for confiscatory policy measures that address poverty and starvation.
Burke goes farther, though, in this statement. Until now, bishops have restricted their criticisms to Catholic politicians who work to support abortion rights. Burke has expanded this into a broader political argument, one that will create more controversy in the pews and in the general electorate, especially with pro-life Democrats who will resent the accusation. The church should pursue their mandate of Catholics first, and avoid partisan shots while focusing on issues instead.
Update: I see that, once again, I have to provide the link to the Catechism to explain excommunication in relation to abortion. Paragraph 2272 of the Catechism makes this plain:
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,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. 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.
The phrase “latae sententiae” means the sentence applies automatically, without any action needed by the church. The act constitutes a willful abandonment of the church, a self-imposed excommunication. If the person repents of their sin through confession and resolves to sin no more, they can return to the Eucharist.
It’s not me “kicking people out for political disagreements”, as one commenter accused. It’s the rules of the church, and it couldn’t possibly be plainer. I don’t have the power to kick people out of any church community, nor would I want it. I’m explaining the actual doctrine of the church, and why Archbishop Burke and the Vatican have become much more assertive in applying it. And if people resolve to formally cooperate with abortion anyway, then they have chosen to live in a state of excommunication.
One more point. I’m not arguing that Burke doesn’t have the right to accuse the Democrats of being “the party of death”; of course he does. I just think it’s more effective to stay focused on the issues of abortion and life rather than get into a Dem-Rep debate. Saying “Democrats stink” is partisanship, if you will, while “abortion stinks” is issue-oriented debate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor considers artificial birth control to be intrinsically evil
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 5:13 PM
neuque,
I would draw one distinction with you only as regards abortion. I think a Catholic could support a pro choice candidate as long as the candidate was pro life. I’m sure I just got myself into some sort of double bind. But forging ahead I say this as regards current law. The elected official is allowed to enforce current law. If abortion is the law he must enforce it until it is changed. You cannot deny other people the legal choice they want to make.
I supported Rudi for a host of reasons and this was one of them. He was pro choice as a politician but was pro life as a person.
patrick neid on October 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Yes, and not only him, it has been the constant teaching of the church. See Humane Vita (Pope Paul VI)
I didn’t include it because that’s a whole new thread.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Ed, I’ll start it for you: “Forgive me Father for I have sinned, it’s been….”
The role of the Catholic Church has been usurped by left wing idealogues for so long that the correction that is taking place in Catholics all over the US is long overdue. Liberalism in theology has led us into the wilderness where goats/cows/beasts of all stripes have souls and rights above man. We are the only species that must refrain from procreating and we are the ones destroying creation. Go forth and prosper should be re-translated into go forth on foot or bike and prosper to the extent you have one child and not a comfortable life. Ed, this is pantheism at its heart – we need to encourage leaders who know right from wrong. Let truth ring out – no matter where it comes from. Do not inhibit it, for that condones the godless ways of Americas left.
Fuquay Steve on October 2, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I do think this is what is important. It was the politicians who came out trying to persuade other Catholics that their political position was in accord with Church teaching when it is clearly not. Of course the Church should speak out clearly that those politicians are misrepresenting the Church position! Make it clear. No matter what an individual Catholic uses to justify their politics it is not the official Church position. And there could be consequences here on Earth for pretending otherwise.
petunia on October 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Sorry my post was cryptic, I think. I was just backing up the notion that we are in a fight against the left to define/redefine our faith.
There is a lot of “soldier of Christ” flavor to the R.C. Catholic confirmation ceremony. In recalling my own confirmation ceremony, I remember that at some point the priest (bishop) gently slapped the faces of those being confirmed. The idea is that you are getting ready to go out to be a soldier of Christ and fight for the faith, not just keep the faith in your heart.
Normally I hesitate to quote Wikipedia, but I’m too lazy to find the appropriate link at a more authoritative source at the Vatican or USCCB web sites:
Wikipedia seems to be indicating that the ceremony has been changed, but I was confirmed after 1971, so I am not sure about that.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You have two types of Catholics the cafeteria Catholics and the devoted Catholics. Basically the cafeteria ones lean to the left and go to church just in case that God exist.
Devoted are conservative in their values and accept the church teachings. Pelosi and Biden are true cafeteria Catholics. Life is the most precious gift given to us.
pukara61 on October 2, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Of course the Democrats are the party of abortion/death.
If you’re pro-abortion you’re a Democrat.
Case closed.
I never get the Catholics (I’m not btw) that want to be in the church but want to also be pro-abortion…heck, join the Unitarians. I think you can marry a tree with them.
ex-Democrat on October 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM
You might not be in a double bind, depending on the circumstances. I am not sure about the politician/private-life distinction but in the case where we do not have a “good” choice, we must choose the option that would bring about the less evil (again, using the proper hierarchy on moral issues). So if we had Ruddy running against Obama, I believe we would be morally bound to vote for Rudy because it is clear that Obama would bring about greater evil by his active support of abortion. Rudy told us that he would nominate constructionist judges and we did not have a reason to believe he would promote the cause of abortion. I believe that abstaining from voting is rarely valid option.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Ann Coulter way ahead of the curve on this one.
SouthernGent on October 2, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Souls are what we are, not what we have. That’s what the Bible says. Here we have a description of God creating a living, human soul in Genesis 2:7:
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, andbreathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a LIVING SOUL.”
“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a LIVING SOUL; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” 1 Corinthians 15:45
So we are souls. That is what we are. Our present bodies are only temporary dwelling places for that soul. So you are 100% right Johnny. In fact, God knows us before we are born, meaning that at our very conception we are human beings with a future:
“Before I (God) formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5
apacalyps on October 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM
This issue has been beat to death. Who gives a shit?
Xolom on October 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I agree that even devout Catholics can find themselves supporting “pro-choice” candidates for President.
Abortion is an extremely important moral issue, but the President does not unilaterally determine whether or not abortion is banned in this country. I don’t think that a vote for Giuliani would lead inevitably to the promotion of more abortions in this country. In fact, one could argue that he would have probably picked good Supreme Court justices which would eventually lead to overturning Roe v Wade.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 5:55 PM
There is no moral equivalency between the deliberate murder of a child (which is what abortion is) and contraception. To try to spin it into that, won’t work. I will quote the NY Bishops in their letter from yesterday:
“The right to life is the right through which all others flow,” they wrote. “To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholic should consider them less acceptable for public office.”
http://www.nyscatholic.org/pages/news/show_newsDetails.asp?id=469
bnelson44 on October 2, 2008 at 5:57 PM
If Obama is elected, your going to have, what, 4 justices retire and be replaced by very liberal justices? And they are in the office for life. You will never see Roe v Wade overturned.
bnelson44 on October 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM
hooah!
Got it.
hawkdriver on October 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Thanks for the insight, Xolom. I think we know where you stand already: here and here.
And perhaps here?
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM
How is this different from what I said? I didn’t bring up contraception, you did. Contraception is not an election issue. And I did not say that all intrinsic evils are morally equivalent. Obviously some evils have much greater consequences than others. My point was that Catholics cannot equate intrinsically evils like abortion with non-intrinsically evil issues such as support/opposition to the war when deciding on which candidate to support. For example McCain supports the war and opposes abortion, Obama supports abortion and opposes the war. You cannot say: well it’s is 6 of one or 1/2 dozen of the other. By supporting Obama you are supporting the candidate who supports actions that are intrinsically evil.
I hope this clarifies it.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I agree – Obama would appoint terrible justices. I try to be an optimist, so I hope that if he does win he will be a one term president.
I think Roe v Wade is a bad ruling. I’m not a lawyer, but even from a legal standpoint it seems flawed. I certainly don’t see how partial birth abortions and similar late-term abortions can be supported under the viability argument.
In theory, technology will make Roe v Wade moot as earlier and earlier fetuses become viable, but guys like Obama who support withholding medical treatment from viable fetuses from botched abortions clearly show us that there are a lot of “pro-choice” people who are really “pro-abortion.”
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I won’t disagree with the church’s position re. Democrats and abortion. That is all well and good. But, even after the Pope’s several apologies regarding child abuse by priests, it still goes on and the church still is nothing if not obstructionist. If the church spent as much time weeding out those priests that molest children as they do sticking their noses into American politics, they would go a long way to cleaning up their reputation as a church the collectively ignores their own pedophiles.
grdred944 on October 2, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Dedalus, first of all, Wikipedia is not really a good resource if you want anything other than a secondary source for research.
Much of the material in the wikipedia article is taken from http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm
That webpage is a Catholic pro-abortion document which attempts to minimize the inherent sinfulness of abortion.
As an example of their scholarship, they take this out-of-context quote from St. Augustine to prove that he thought that abortion was ok, because the fetus had not yet taken on human form:
A fuller quotation of St. Augustine puts these words into context, and indicates that Augustine considered even a fetus not yet in “human form” to be a person in God’s respect:
As you can see, Augustine makes the point that, even absent “fructification”, the fetus is human and will be given that form, absent any blemish, at the Second Coming.
Ok, so we’ve covered St. Augustine for the Pelosis and the Bidens out there.
“Pro-choice Catholics” often mention (without actually having read it), the proceedings of the Council of Vienne (c. 1311-12). I have yet to locate a copy of the proceedings (acts) from this Council, and, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, none exist except for a fragment related to the persecution of the Knights Templar located in Paris. If you find something, please put up a link so I can read it. The Pope nearest the Council, c. 1325, affirmed in Canon Law that all abortions are a sin.
Aquinas is also stated as having taken Aristotle’s view as to how ensoulment occurs (40 days in the case of a male, 80 days in the case of a female). But one must remember that these were only guesses, based on both sexist and observational differences; Aquinas held the position that abortion was a sin regardless of the state of ensoulment, so the ensoulment argument is a nullity when talking about Aquinas.
The Church held, even as the ensoulment debate was ongoing, that abortion is a sin — note that no person having a wilful abortion, whether before or after ensoulment, is absolved without a penance. The relative punishment differed, but the sin was there nonetheless. As Catholic teaching requires the avoidance of sin, the avoidance of abortion, whether before or after “ensoulment” was needful too.
Note that Church teaching is indeed affected by science. As we come to understand the laws of this world by means of scientific tools such as noninvasive imaging and DNA analysis, we’ve come to the scientific conclusion that we humans have a continuum of existence from the formation of our fertilized egg all the way up until our death of old age. Through that entire range of life, we show “animation” in ways unobservable by the ancients.
But one thing has indeed been consistent. Abortion has always been a sin for Catholics, and the Church’s position has always been that wilful aiding and abetment of sin is sinful too.
unclesmrgol on October 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Birth control is “intrinsically evil” and part of the “culture of death”. At what point do we stop looking at Catholic politicans in terms how they conform to the Vatican? Should they check to see if a particular military tactic meets with Vatican approval? What happens if the Vatican weighs in on an execution–as Pope John Paul II did with Governor Carnahan? Should the governor listen? If the governor is Catholic and excommunication is a consequence should the governor respond to the voters or the Vatican?
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Xolom, you are free to go. Those of us who “give a shit” will stay.
unclesmrgol on October 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Next time you might want to look at the title of the thread before joining it, doesn’t look like this is what you expected.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I think that abortion is a mortal sin since it involves the taking of human life whereas the use of artificial contraception is a venal sin. I’ll see if I can find an authoritative source and post it. (Can anyone help me out on this one?)
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 6:23 PM
laws,
At this point, the only difference I can find is in the period of 1311 (Council of Vienne) and 1588 (Effraenatam).
The wikipedia article states that at the Council of Vienne, Thomas Aquinas’ views were ‘officially adopted.’
The footnote links to a webpage that summarizes a publication by Catholics for a Free Choice.
Which, of course, raises two immediate red flags:
1) It’s a summarization, not the actual text.
2) The original text came from a potentially biased source.
So, I’m left with two issues:
1) The wikipedia statement is sort of vague. It speaks of ensoulment, but not of abortion. I need to find out if the Council of Vienne actually linked the two together (ensoulment and abortion), or if it simply spoke of ensoulment.
2) I need to find a less biased source of information.
Whatever I find, nothing will give Pelosi’s comments any credence.
And nothing will detract from the central tenant that the Catholic church has remained unchanged in their opinion that abortion is murder.
You see, even DURING this period the church stated that abortion a sin.
They just played around with the definition a bit.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Insert argumentative comment here.
AbaddonsReign on October 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
OK, you can totally ignore my last post because
covered it first and in better detail.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370: …”Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil”
You might want to also read Pope Paul VI Encyclical Humane Vite, it explains in great detail the reason for this.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Thanks. I found it.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 6:36 PM
The question of “mortal” vs “venial” sins is a little more involved, you might want to check Catechism of the CC 1854-1864. Have fun :)
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 6:49 PM
…Benedict, my MAN!
You go, girl!
*WHOOPS!*
…sorry…celebate men in dresses…throws me very time….
Puritan1648 on October 2, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Agree on Wikipedia. Medieval Catholic writings are not in abundance on-line. I’ll link to the ones I find. Much of what I’ve read recently about the history of Catholic thought on abortion and birth control is from John Noonan.
Pelosi was first by Brokaw “When life begins” not initially about abortion as sin. Abortion has always been a Catholic sin but at times part of the “intrinsic evil” of interfering with God’s plan rather than the killing of a person. It is hard difficult to reconcile the Aquinas position of delayed ensoulment with the concept that a zygote is equivalent to baby.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Part of that reason is simply the difference in worldviews between now and 800 years ago. Their frame of reference for many things is/was much different than ours today.
I’ve read a bit of Aquinas and it can be very difficult getting through it.
As far as Pelosi is concerned, she tried to split hairs and be an ‘authority’ on Catholic church history.
She was correctly taken to task by church leaders for her errors of fact and errors of judgment.
And whatever little ‘blips on the radar’ there are in changes of thought toward ‘ensoulment’, none of it either validates what Pelosi said or invalidates her critics.
She should either shut up, read the history or quit the church.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Yep, thanks. I was wandering a bit O/T anyway with the mortal vs venial sin thing. The relevant thing to the original question is that the Catholic Church is not trying to dictate U.S. law to fit with Church teaching, except when bad law results in the taking of human life.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 7:10 PM
There is a popular idea that everything in a life should be planned out and follow perfectly, or it is wasted and worthless.
I think the drive to abort “unplanned” pregnancies comes from this. Contraception use is probably influenced as well.
…
Of course, this is me the atheist commenting on a Catholic issue, but, oh well.
Count to 10 on October 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM
This link is from a Catholic Bishop who mentions the Decretum Gratini and the actions of Pope Gregory XIV. The Bishop’s writings acknowledge that penalties within the Catholic church have varied based on gestation and ensoulment.
How is this logical? It would be like having a different penalty for killing a 5 year old than killing a 2 year old.
Clearly the Church’s position is consistent today but it has changed from the teaching that the Bishop references.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Yes, and it’s the basis for supporting “mercy killing,” too.
Sad times.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Yes. I think people confuse what the church/bishops are doing. They are not trying to impose their beliefs on politicians. Their comments are mainly aimed at 2 things:
1. Clarify church teaching on the face of scandalous, misleading statements by prominent political figures who identify themselves as catholics.
2. Help clarify and form the conscience of the catholic faithful to help them make informed choices in this political season.
Neither of these efforts presumes to impose catholic beliefs on government or on non-Catholics. However, we all hope that catholic politicians will themselves make choices that are not contrary to catholic thought, specially in grave matters..
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Oh, I understand …. like carbon offsets!
MsDollie on October 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I think we’re crossing wires.
The link I was referring to was a footnote in the wiki article that went to a website that summarized a pro-choice article on the history of abortion within the church.
I’m not quite sure what link you’re talking about.
I imagine that is like having a different punishment for killing a man to take his wallet and killing a man who is trying to take YOUR wallet.
Not that this is a direct analogy, but just pointing out that what is being killed and why it’s being killed make a great difference on whether it is a sin or not.
Again, abortion has ALWAYS been a sin.
What constitutes an abortion has had some differences as time has gone by.
If there was any ‘mistake’ made by those who criticized Pelosi it was in jumping from the ensoulment issue right into abortion.
However, since that was the underlying subject…
…and since Pelosi STILL blew it with her “well researched facts”…
…I’m not too hung up about it.
I just don’t understand why you’re going to such great lengths to defend something that is really indefensible?
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM
If my memory is correct, she was asked by Brokaw about Catholic teaching and “When does life begin”, rather than abortion as a sin. She referred to Augustine and other “Doctors of the Church”, a title meaning that their writings are timeless–Aquinas is among the most important Church Doctors.
Aquinas and Augustine held views that are different than the current Vatican. I think Pelosi’s history wasn’t half-bad; it just isn’t relevant to today’s Vatican and their clear teaching. Unfortunately, the Bishop’s condemning her want to oversimplify the history of the church, rather than show how the Vatican clarified its teaching quickly with very early scientific advances in embryology.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 7:28 PM
And that right there is why I get up everyday ready to fight the good fight. Don’t be discouraged by the polls. Keep on keeping on.
mrsmwp on October 2, 2008 at 7:30 PM
The link I had posted was from a Catholic Bishop–I thought it would be less biased than the Wikipedia footnote. No big deal.
I thank you for your thoughtful comments. I’m no fan of Pelosi. Mostly trying to avoid looking at my stock market screen today.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM
So let me get this straight…
…Pelosi grossly oversimplified Catholic history (and getting a lot of it completely wrong), and that’s OK.
The Bishop who didn’t oversimplify the situation because he changed the topic to abortion…that’s NOT OK?
It’s very telling that your “outrage” appears to be a bit selective.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Yeah, I feel a bit like an ass right now.
Sorry about that.
Nothing to see here, keep moving, keep moving. ;)
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM
OK, let me sum everything up.
Pelosi tried to show herself as an ‘expert’ on Catholic doctrine and history, yet messed it up pretty well in her attempt to cloud the issue of abortion.
She got some things right but couldn’t/wouldn’t put them into any kind of order that made sense (seemingly inferring that the church has been in constant doubt since Aquinas, but never stating that even Aquinas was against abortion at ANY time).
The Bishop’s response probably could have been written a little clearer by explaining the differences between abortion and ensoulment and also how they are connected.
I hate to knock my brothers and sisters in Christ, but the Catholic church DOES have a habit from time to time of smoothing the ‘creases’ in their history.
Personally, though, I would never make any kind of statement or insinuation that the Bishop was wrong or ‘unfair’ to Pelosi.
She needed to have her hand slapped but hard.
The Bishop could have/should have been more clear, but Pelosi deserved everything she got (plus more!)
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 7:47 PM
That situation never arises except in theory. Church teaching, while it is in the footnotes, is pretty clear about the responsibilities of an elected official. You are to carry out the law of the land. No ifs ands or buts assuming you are in a civilized country, say the US for example. However, and this is the most important distinction, you must not personally embrace, empower etc laws against your faith. That is why I previously mentioned Rudi the pro choice candidate. Rudi understood that as Mayor, Governor or President he had to enforce the law as written. That does not mean he has to embrace it personally, in fact he must stand against it–he was publicly pro life. If the law in a state allows capital punishment a Catholic Governor must carry it out if the court orders it. That does not prevent the Governor from attempting to change the law through campaigning, logic etc.
Church teaching does not prevent folks from participating in the political process. In fact it encourages it with the hope that personal example will lead to change.
I believe that is the driving force behind the hoped for destruction of Gov Palin. They have to prevent her example.
I’ll be the first to admit that the little I have said on these matters are being pulled out of a remote closet in my brain having been put there by eights years of Jesuits before Roe v Wade was legal…
As to the contraception issues, delicate measures as they are, the Irish settled that Gordian Knot by coming up with the old semi tried and true “rhythm”. Now you I’m a fossil.
patrick neid on October 2, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Bishop Martini of the Diocese of Scranton, PA has written a pastoral letter to be read this weekend in place of the homily. He is reminding his parishoners of the church’s position on abortion and their responsibility to support pro-life candidates.
This diocese is so huge that they have three bishops!
I wonder what effect this will have on Senator Obama’s campaign in PA?
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Close enough for government work! I think we aren’t too far apart. Looking forward to the debate in about an hour.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 8:03 PM
If a person really, truly believed and lived out their faith, then none of this would really matter.
The problem is when a politician claims to be something and then acts in a different way.
It’s not so much about politics as it is about living an honest faithful life.
One really can’t be pro-choice and a Catholic. It just doesn’t work.
Thus, if a politician has come to a different conclusion than the church on a matter of such importance, the two (the politician and the church) should simply part ways.
Because in reality, they have ALREADY parted ways.
And truth be told, there are plenty of churches out there that embrace the pro-choice viewpoint.
And if all that fails, they could always join the unitarians! ;)
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 8:04 PM
The Catholic church has every right to inform it’s parishioners about it’s tenets. Belonging to a church is still a “free choice.” If one doesn’t believe the teachings then they should leave the church.
I wouldn’t put politics over ex-communication if it were my choice.
SayWhat on October 2, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Clearly a lot of people, myself included, care very deeply about this issue. I’m enjoying this thread very much. If it bores you to the point of profanity can always be on your merry way.
aengus on October 2, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Aengus,
Amen.
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 8:10 PM
“Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370: …”Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil”
You might want to also read Pope Paul VI Encyclical Humane Vite, it explains in great detail the reason for this.”
Probably because priests can’t get altar boys pregnant.
jim m on October 2, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Nicely put Religious Zealot. Of course, for Christians all this is handled when we arrive in front of Our Lord. Politicians would be wise to steer clear of religious policy statements.
SayWhat on October 2, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Hopefully, but the motivation of the bishops wasn’t to punish Pelosi (or Biden) but to protect the faithful who might not have a strong formation and could be misled by the erroneous statements from two prominent figures who identify themselves as fervent Catholics. I found the discussion regarding the specifics of Pelosi’s statements interesting, but the important point is that what she was trying to do was to justify her pro-choice position and suggest that it is an acceptable position within the Catholic church. That needed to be rebuked for the good of their flock.
The same goes for Biden’s erroneous assertion that abortion is just one of a number of “social justice” issues, and that Catholics can remain in good standing by trading abortion support for confiscatory policy measures that address poverty and starvation.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 8:14 PM
It’s almost reflexive.
If one is a Catholic priest then they must be a pedophile.
And if one criticizes Senator Obama then they are racist.
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 8:14 PM
I don’t expect any change in that decision. That really isn’t the issue anyway. The issue is the potential for the destruction of the Constitution via judicial activism. Why do you think we are being forced to consider a Saul Alinsky trained presidential candidate? Agitation is the tool being used in every aspect of the Dem campaign, from squelching free speech, legislating for control of voting locations, propagating misinformation to seniors, misstatements about campaign policy……the list is long.
SayWhat on October 2, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I propose a new internet law, something akin to Godwin’s law.
Let’s call it the Catholic Priest Law (beats calling it Religious_Zealot’s Law!):
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Can’t we get back to bashing Mormons, please?
/sarcasm off
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Motion seconded.
Show of hands?
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Count me in!
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Onamesa – I think you’ve hit a nerve.
I think we’re all fed up with the out right ignorance. What is true is that calling the opposition names will simply harden issues. No one will win.
SayWhat on October 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Oh, absolutely.
The point of discussion (I think!) between dadelus and myself had to do with whether or not the Bishop’s statement was ‘fair’ to Pelosi.
But personally, my biggest beef with Pelosi was her self-elevation to a position of authority (”I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time”).
Combined with her political authority, she was basically doing an end-around the authority of the Pope and the church.
It’s one thing to be in a position of power and to do something opposite the teachings of one’s church.
It’s an altogether DIFFERENT thing to use your position of power to subvert the teachings of one’s church.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 8:28 PM
What many catholic bashers fail to understand is that our faith is not affected by the perfidy of a few.
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 8:30 PM
A motion from the floor. In Rev Wrights world we need to be concerned about the Joooos.
Fuquay Steve on October 2, 2008 at 8:30 PM
*Raises hand*
aengus on October 2, 2008 at 8:32 PM
It seems that a discussion about Catholicism always brings the cream of the crop out of the slimy bottom.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Rev. Wright is a disgrace to the pulpit. That he has so much influence over so many people is disquieting.
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 8:35 PM
ho ho ho
Not just Rev Wright’s world — this is mainstream DNC territory, boys and girls.
I heard Eric Cantor is a jooo.
Still, I’m not sure anything compares to the halcyon days of the Mormon-bashing Huckleberry threads on HA this summer. I discovered that a lot of folks spend a lot of time fretting over what other folks do in their churches. Those same folks seemed woefully ill-informed about Catholic teaching, but are very free to share their misconceptions with others, so it was a laugh-riot.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM
OK, I’m off to do my nine-minute novena for Palin’s debate performance.
Toodles!
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 8:39 PM
I can hear it now – Jesus was a jew and P. Pilate was a Catholic.
Fuquay Steve on October 2, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Can’t agree with you here, Ed.
I applaud this pronouncement.
If pro-life Democrats are offended by the charge, then they need to fight to change the Democrat platform, or get out of the party.
And Nancy Pelosi must be held accountable for completely misrepresenting Catholic doctrine.
It’s time for some controversy. It’s time to shake people out of their complacency. It’s time to fight harder for life.
Just my two cents.
Hawkins1701 on October 2, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Hawkins,
When I heard about Bishop Martino’s policy in Scranton I called him and got a copy of his letter and emailed it to my bishop and archbishop asking them to consider following his lead.
I also sent it to Catholics for McCain.
Onamesa on October 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM
If ALL the pro lifers would vote we’d win in a landslide. People just don’t care enough. Some issues won’t get settled till we’re in heaven.
Mojave Mark on October 3, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, and socialism. You can throw abortion and death in there too.
Mojave Mark on October 3, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Ed, He didn’t say “Democrats stink”. He said the DEMOCRAT PARTY is a party of death. The platform of the Democrat party is prima facie evidence of what the party stands for. NO? If individual Democrats don’t like that label then they should change the platform or leave the party. He wasn’t saying Democrats stink, he was saying Democrats are promoting policies and laws which have MURDERED millions under the guise of “rights of privacy” and “the right to choose.”
jcw46 on October 3, 2008 at 12:03 AM
I’d love to see the Catholic Church focus more closely on stamping out the rampant pedophilia in its organization, ending the misogyny inherent in its all-male priesthood, acknowledging contraception (something that 9/10 American catholics use at last count), and disbursing some of the hundreds of billions it has collected from the faithful to some of its poorest adherents in the 3rd world.
Ain’t going to happen though is it?
I do like the choice of the former Hitler youth guy as Pope though. That is apposite.
Ares on October 3, 2008 at 2:44 AM
If the shoe fits, Ed.
SKYFOX on October 3, 2008 at 4:38 AM
do like the choice of the former Hitler youth guy as Pope though. That is apposite.
Ares on October 3, 2008
Funny that you mention Hitler. It seems you two have more in common.
SKYFOX on October 3, 2008 at 4:41 AM
There aren’t enough Americans who share the Vatican’s view on life beginning at conception. If Roe were overturned today, you’d find the majority of Americans voting against outlawing abortion all the way back to the earliest moments following conception.
dedalus on October 3, 2008 at 7:45 AM
I disagree, else why would the Democrat Party fight so hard to keep abortion in the hands of the Supreme Court?
America has the most liberal abortion laws in the WORLD. You can’t abort a child a 9 months gestation in Europe.
If abortion were to be put to a vote, there would be restrictions on abortion the liked we haven’t seen since pre-Roe.
NoDonkey on October 3, 2008 at 8:40 AM
It would vary by state, but in most polls the majority of Americans support access to abortion in the first 3 months. The number is likely higher for the morning after pill.
Restrictions in a few states that didn’t result in an outright ban wouldn’t be much of a solution if one believes that life a few minutes after conception is equivalent to that of an infant.
dedalus on October 3, 2008 at 9:33 AM
“It would vary by state, but in most polls the majority of Americans support access to abortion in the first 3 months. The number is likely higher for the morning after pill.”
Perhaps the first three months, but not the latter six, which would be a huge improvement on what we have currently.
NoDonkey on October 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM
That’s not true.
Both Augustine and Aquinias were against abortion under all circumstances.
The teaching of the Church is that the soul is created at conception. Period.
The problem with quoting Augustine with authority is that while he may be a saint, Augustine was not a THEOLOGIAN.
In order to be a theologian one must be able to SEE their theology in a spiritual, not an intellectual, way and they must be able to literally SEE and experience the Light of Christ.
Augustine only understood theology in an intellectual way and that is why there is so much error in his theology.
While he was not a heretic himself, he is considered by the Orthodox Church to be the Father of many western heresies and the reason why is because of his purely intellectual understanding of theology.
SaintOlaf on October 3, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I agree with you. Though, I think for someone holding the position that life at conception holds rights equal to a child it leaves the biggest part of the problem unsolved.
dedalus on October 3, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church. He didn’t make Church law, but those who did were informed by his thinking.
In the Middle Ages the church taught delayed ensoulment and had different penalties for abortion before animation and after animation.
dedalus on October 3, 2008 at 10:46 AM
That is one of the reasons why Augustine is referred to as a father of many western heresies.
IF the Roman Catholic Church taught delayed ensoulment during a brief period in the middle ages, it is simply false and a later deviation from the correct belief of the Apostolic Church.
SaintOlaf on October 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Which Vatican teachings should we ask Catholic politicians to put into U.S. law? What is the criteria for including some teachings but not others?
dedalus on October 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM
How about laws relating to criminalizing and preventing murder?
Is that fair or too much to ask?
SaintOlaf on October 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Should we care if Catholic politicians disagree with John Paul’s teaching on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae?
dedalus on October 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The #1 most important issue this election is abortion and the nomination of supreme court justices.
We have four openings soon and we only need to add one more judge who is against abortion, in order to end abortion in the United States.
SaintOlaf on October 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Try living in pre-WWII E. Europe & see if YOU didn’t join Hitler Youth. Puhleeze.
Burke is correct in saying that when you support something like abortion,either PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY, you are STILL supporting it. You are giving it credence. And so to say that these things are OK for non-Catholics but not for Catholics is to give the impression of supporting it.
So it’s kinda like saying you’re against gossip, but you stand around listening while other people do it & NEVER say a word about how wrong it is. You are STILL guilty of participating in the gossip.
Same with murder. This is what’s wrong with our society. People do not stand up & speak out against wrongdoing. They silently stand by & watch it. This promotes acceptance & apathy.
The church (though I’m not a Catholic) has every right to make it’s public members accountable to the rules.
As for being a president of a country that allows abortion legally, they must do their level best if they believe against it by trying to turn things around in the best way that they can.
Badger40 on October 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3