So, not a Catholic then, who believes that “good” and “evil” are real terms, and that there are actions that are objectively morally good and objectively morally evil?
Perhaps a Catholic that believes that there is both real good and real evil, but realizes these are his or her own personal beliefs and that others might not share those beliefs. Having a world view and insisting that others share that world view are 2 different things. You seem to be saying that Catholics cannot comprehend what might be outside of their own world view. Is that what you’re saying?
I may have a right, or even a moral obligation, to set a better example or to speak out against it. However, the hurdle to be cleared before I have a right (much less a moral obligation) to forcibly stop such behavior is much higher than simply considering it to be “wrong”.
Another thought. Say I leave a living will saying to pull the plug if I’m braindead in a terminal state. A Catholic thinks this is murder. Is the Catholic morally obligated to try and stop my wishes from being fulfilled, even if he has no relationship to me at all?
Or perhaps a Catholic has an obligation to go to the store and pierce little holes in the condoms? Or swap sugar pills for moning after pills?
You do realize that this kind of opinion is what gives extreme religion hating atheists their ammunition, right?
Sure. But as an elected representative in government, you also have a moral (and Constitutional) obligation to represent your constituents to the best of your ability, without entangling government with religion.
That means that you can’t just blindly follow the religious precepts of your preferred religious institution, irrespective of what your constituents think on the issue. Sure, you may sometimes face a dilemma where you have a genuine difference of moral opinion with the majority of your constituents. But in such a case, ISTM that it’s your obligation to defend your moral position on general ethical grounds, not by invoking religious principles that your constituents don’t necessarily share.
In other words, if your constituents on the whole support the right to an abortion while you think abortion is wrong, you can make your general ethical case that embryos ought to be considered people, that valuing fetal life is good for society, etc. etc. whatever. And if your constituents aren’t convinced and don’t feel that your position adequately represents their preferences, they can throw you the hell out of office. Fair all round.
But if your argument is just “My Church says that abortion is sinful and I refuse to vote for anything sinful”, you are betraying your constituents. It’s your duty to represent them in secular government, not to impose your own religious principles on them by legislative fiat. If you feel that honestly representing your constituents conflicts with your individual religious duty as a Catholic or whatever, you simply shouldn’t be in government. And the Catholic Church should not be encouraging, much less blackmailing, Catholic legislators to betray their constituents in this way.
Well, but your constituents can throw you out if you act the second way, too. There’s not a fundamental difference. And, I don’t think the Catholic Church is really advocating the second…they want Catholic legislators to say, “My Church says that abortion is sinful and I agree with them because embryos ought to be considered people, that valuing fetal life is good for society, etc. etc. whatever.”
And I’m saying that I don’t think this is wrong…a legislator, like everyone else, has to be motivated by his sense of morality and ethics when it comes to judging public policy.
This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Back in the 19th century in the US, a number of churches banned their members from owning slaves and expelled slaveholders and those who advocated slavery. (This led to splits among the Baptists and Methodists, as well as other groups). Were those churches wrong too? Doesn’t a church have the right to ask its members to adopt a certain set of moral principles, and act according to those principles?
Sure. I would argue that the fundamental difference is that the first way is the appropriate and respectful way to handle a moral difference of opinion between legislators and constituents, while the second way is just Theocracy Lite. The fact that both situations may have the same impact and the same remedy doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between them, IMHO.
Naturally they want that. What I object to is when they try to blackmail Catholic legislators into adopting that stance by means of threatened religious penalties.
Sure, but a church doesn’t have the right to ask its members to betray its ethical responsibilities in other areas. If the Catholic Church feels that being a good Catholic is incompatible with honestly representing a pro-abortion-rights constituency in government, it should be telling its Catholic legislators with pro-abortion-rights constituencies to resign from office. Not threatening them with excommunication or whatever if they have conscientious scruples about shoving Catholic anti-abortion doctrines down the throats of people who don’t subscribe to Catholic doctrine in the first place.
Imagine for a moment that the subject of this controversy isn’t abortion but rather birth control, to which Catholic doctrine is also morally opposed. Does the Catholic Church have the right to insist that Catholic legislators should work to re-criminalize contraception in the civil law, or face religious penalties?
There can be several reasons why you don’t vote the way your constituents would want at the moment. First, you might not know. Second, you might be privy to information they don’t have yet. Third, you may feel the trend is moving your way, and they’ll catch up to you. And finally, you may think their views are not morally sound, and are willing to take the consequences.
However, that is all different from voting against what the Consitution says, to the best of your knowledge. That’s always wrong (assuming you’re not voting on an amendment.)
Again, someone who feels they can’t uphold their oath of office without violating their religious beliefs should resign. Simple enough. In the US the Constitution comes first. do you agree, Captain Amazing?