And again, there are things apart from banning abortion that a politician like Kerry could do to reduce their number, and a good many of those things could be undertaken without imposing on anyone’s rights.
To the best of my knowledge, Kerry hasn’t done anything substantial in this regard.
Yes, that’s exactly right. Kerry, ISTM, could have said he doesn’t buy the church’s position, as it is taught, but he can’t say the contrary and still support abortion rights. It’s incoherent.
I am no expert, but that is contrary to what I have learned. I’ll defer to someone more expert than me, but in the interim I firmly believe that the RCC does NOT allow for someone to morally come to the conclusion that abortion is OK. Only my own experience, but I base that on my 20 years of education in Catholic education and 46 years as a Catholic. While there are certain scriptural passages (as an example) that the church allows for personal interpretation, their position on abortions seems brightly unambiguous. I’m not aware of anything that would suggest otherwise.
They also used to believe that anyone unbabptized was going to spend an eternity in hell, so it was a moral obligation to forcibly convert anyone they could. So this kind of thing is inherent in absolute moral judgments not arrived at through strongly supported ethical arguments. It’s the fundamental disconnect between religion and secular society. Absolutist monotheistic religions (those who say we have the one true answer) decide how much of their doctrine they want to push on society from almost none by Quakers to almost all from advocates of Islamic law.
Not at all. I’m not sure he ever said he totally accepted the church’s position, but he did say that he felt his responsibility as an elected representative of those not accepting the church’s position came first. He never got this far into it, but you can imagine him saying that he accepts the church’s position by faith, but that is not enough support for a law. He might say he feels it’s right, but he doesn’t know that it’s right.
IANA Catholic. I must say, though, that it’s very troubling to me that the Pope would be issing edicts like this. In the long run, I suspect it will make non-Catholics more suspicious of the church’s role in American politics and give credence to (largely unfounded) accusations of improper influence.
John F. Kennedy was the first and thus far only Catholic President. His 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Assn., given while he was a candidate coping with openly anti-Catholic bias, should be required reading for the current Pope, all bishops and priests, and all Catholic politicos.
JFK’s words still ring true, IMHO. See the fourth and fifth paragraphs, in particular: American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy -- Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Just to add to the debate, I give you Archbishop Donald Wuerl, who as the archbishop of Washington was asked point blank whether he would deny communion to pro-choice Catholic lawmakers:
I can’t say I disagree with his approach. Chase someone like Kerry or Pelosi away from the church and you lose forever the chance to teach them.
I think you can challenge them a bit, though. If they claim they are personally pro-life, then test them on it. Ask them to assist a pro life endeavor in a way that doesn’t infringe on choice, and make their prestige work for a cause they claim to believe in.
From this cite:
This is the hypocrisy. He can’t have it both ways. These two paragraphs cannot go together. The church does NOT teach that the belief in the sanctity of human life is a personal decision. It just does not.
Let’s leave the unborn to the side for the moment. My church teaches that murder is wrong, and I accept that. I believe that murder violates the most fundamental of human rights. Unless I believe that this right does not deserve protection, I can’t simultaneous believe murder is wrong and that it’s a personal decision.
Does Kerry counsel anyone? I mean, outside of a political campaign?
Kudos if he does, but he doesn’t seem the type to me.
The pious glow he exudes will apparently offset any political support he has provided for abortion rights, thereby eliminating the need for the practice.
I agree with you and not just in regard to the abortion issue. I don’t see how an individual who is faithful to all the tenets of their religion could serve a secular role like that and remain faithful. There will always be compromise that leads to spreading something contrary to the guidelines of the faith.
Of course I would go farther than Kerry–my faith wouldn’t allow me to go to war, never mind if it would “guide me through it”.
Kimstu manages to articulate the reason for my unease after reading the Pope’s statement far better than I’ve managed to. Thanks!
I’m pro birth control, and don’t want a multi-national religious hierarchy using its clout to try to restrict the birth control choices available to my fellow US citizens and myself.
I’m anti death penalty, but want the US citizenry to figure out how we will deal with this issue as a society.
I could, I think. My religion prescribes all sorts of things, many of which I think have no place in the public arena, nor do I think my religion should demand so. I don’t think it should be law that all Catholics must go to mass on Sunday, must never divorce and remarry, must all abstain from eating meat on Fridays in Lent, etc., despite the fact that I am faithful to each of these laws. Anyone who thinks Catholics must actively attempt to install such matters as the law of the land are misguided, in my book. Render unto Caesar, and all that.
I believe that civil and criminal matters ought to deal with the protection of one’s rights against the intrusion of another. Where such protection is not in play, it’s no concern of the law, regardless of what my individual morals dictate for me. Where such protection is required may overlap with my religious beliefs, but that’s just coincidence. My religious beliefs, by themselves, should carry no weight.
I’m willing to be corrected on there being no pronouncements in ex cathedra by the Church about abortion. But if my memory is correct, then my assertion stands because it merely flows from this fact and the fact that Catholics can reject any teaching that runs counter to their own conscience - provided that it is not an article of Catholic faith - something that you can not ignore if you wish to remain Catholic.
Excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Life, Abortion, and Euthanasia:
Really, I don’t think there’s the wiggle room on this issue that you think there is. The RCC says that abortions performed principally to terminate the life of the unborn (as opposed to abortions that are a secondary effect of something like removing a tumor) are wrong, always. And bears shit in the woods and the pope’s Catholic. Really.
And to bring this back to the original point, guys like Kerry say they have filtered the teachings through their consciences and agreed with them. And simultaneously decided that abortion rights should be supported. Read the cite I just provided and try to reconcile the positions. It can’t be done.
well, what you cited prohibits Catholics from having or aiding in abortions. I didn’t see anything there that required a Catholic to force those not subscribing to the catechism to follow it.
Abortion is legal in the US with certain restrictions and it isn’t up to any Catholic politician who is acting in his official capacity to force non Catholics to accept the position stated in the first paragraph in your cite.
This is tedious. The cite I provided refers to “the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” Here, let me provide a definition of “inviolable”:
You cannot hold this to be true and believe that this is a matter of personal conscience. You cannot hold this and simultaneously believe that abortions can be permitted, unless you simultaneously hold that innocent human life needn’t be protected. John Kerry was a weasel on this particular issue. Sorry.
It’s even more tedious for me. I care not what the Catholic catechism says. According to the laws of the US abortion is not a violation and your citing an “inviolable right” is meaningless. Politicians take an oath to uphold the US laws, and collateraly to accept the definitions therein, not the catechism of the Catholic Church and its definitions.
All your cite does, one more time, as regards Kerry is bar him from participating in an abortion.
You simply must abandon the idea that just because the Catholic catechism defines something a certain way and lays down certain strictures for Catholics that that’s that for all.
Are you kidding? This is a straw man. The question was not whether RCC catechism should carry the weight of U.S. laws. It was whether or not the church’s position on abortion allows for individuals to make personal decisions regarding this act, whether or not Kerry’s blather could in any way be reconciled with the RCC’s abortion teachings. It cannot, not when the church views this as a violation of an inviolable right. Kerry cannot simultaneously accept that teaching and support abortion rights. You getting this? Please don’t counter now with some straw man nonsense about how Kerry doesn’t have to follow church law, therefore my point is meaningless.
That’s that for Catholics, though, which is the point. This isn’t that tough. If you’re a Catholic pol who says he accepts the church’s teachings on abortion, then you believe that abortion violates the most fundamental and inviolable human right. Given that belief, you either would assert that it’s a right, but it’s a right that does not deserve protection, one that society needn’t concern itself with, or you would assert otherwise and oppose abortion rights.
But given that belief–which essentially assigns the same inviolable right to live that a toddler, a teenager, a senior citizen possesses–how could one coherently assert that abortion is acceptable? “I believe that the unborn have the inviolable right to live” and “I believe abortions should be permitted” are two statements that do not go together. And I would argue that legislators who actively install law that facilitate abortions are absolutely active participants in the process, enabling the practice.
Even if I grant your point for a moment (though I think it misses the point, obviously), how could one reasonably argue that a pro-choice voting legislator plays a substantially different role–in the sense we’re discussing–than an abortion doctor, than the guy who drives the woman to get the abortion, than the person who pays for it? All are active participants in this act. “Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence.” Kerry and his senatorial brethren are far from innocent bystanders. Again, you and I may or may not consider that his right. But the point is, he (and people like Kennedy, Pelosi and Giuliani) should have the balls to simply say, “Sorry, I’m not convinced the church has it right on this one.” Would take some of the steam out of any concerns people have regarding the Holy Father setting U.S. policy through his faithful toadies, wouldn’t it?