That does make your position clearer. Makes it a statement of philosophical opinion, not of fact as it appeared. Thanks.
The influence, some might say stranglehold, of the Church in Nicaragua, El Salvador and the DR is the only reason the law is so absolute. It was the Nicaraguan Church that tried to prevent the nine-year old girl’s family from getting her an abortion. The health minister agreed with the Church, but the attorney general didn’t, and the girl ended up having the abortion.
The Church threw a hissy fit and declared the family excommunicated, only to be informed that they weren’t even Catholics in the first place. 
I have a Jehovah’s Witness pamphlet that states “If, at the time of birth, it is determined that only one life can be saved, the physician should do everything possible to say the mother’s.” (their emphasis). So that’s one group that believes every child should be carried to term.
If the church was behind the law and shaped it the way it is now, I don’t see how anyone could claim that the law didn’t reflect church teachings. It is church teachings. What the church does is what the church teaches, not the other way around.
- and where they can get away with it, like in countries with a largely undereducated population, they push it to the limit.
Fair enough, but I think that your reasoning is still in line with my statement. The operative word in your statement is “person”, a very loaded word in the context of an abortion discussion.
A fetus (beyond a very early point in development) is undeniably alive. It is arguably a parasitic life form, an unwanted life form, sometimes a dangerous life form, but it’s clearly alive. It is also undeniably human (genetically). I think it’s foolish to debate either of those points, but I’m open to listening to reasoning otherwise. Whether a fetus, at some point, is a person is a moral, religious, philosophical and/or legal question.
But it seems to me that one could rephrase your statement of many pro-choicers’ beliefs as: “The freedom of choice of a person is more important than the life of a non-person.”
Personally, I believe that in many cases, the freedom of choice of a person is sometimes more important than the life of a person, even. I see this as an extension of the above stated belief, not a contradiction of it.
I didn’t hear anyone from the RCC complain about how restrictive the law was, or suggesting that exceptions be made in some cases. This law was their child, and damn this is one case where I firmly believe an abortion was needed.
Nope, sorry, repeating this won’t make it true. There is a specific teaching of the Church that I provided you that covers this, and it doesn’t state what you thought it did. The fact that there are Catholics–even Cardinals–who misunderstand and/or overreach in the name of the RCC does not make that the position of the Church. What the Church teaches is what the Church teaches, to use your convention. Whether or not everyone behaves in a manner consistent with that teaching has always been a different matter, Cardinals included.
That does seem like a reasonable interpretation. I can agree with it.
Me too. Ok, you’ve convinced me.
I provided you the position of the RCC that specifically allows for exceptions. I don’t know how else to state it. That’s the RCC’s position and teaching on the matter. Perhaps not everyone–Nicaraguan cardinals included–understand it–hell, maybe they deliberately ignored it–but that doesn’t change it.
Repeating what?
Who are you talking to?
I disagree. Just as if the US behaves in a way opposite to the Constitution, the behavior is the position of the US, not what the Constitution claims.
Just as with everything else humans are involved in, the church teaches by doing. What the church does is the church’s position, just as what I do is my position, no matter what pretty words I may spout.
Now, if you can point to where the Vatican is laying a smackdown on these people I might consider them unrepresentative of the church as a whole. But an organization that says one thing and does another can’t lay claim to the speech as the thing that represents them.
No. Stated differently, what is constitutional is what is in the Constitution. If the US behaves in a way contrary to the Constitution, then they are behaving unconstitutionally. It doesn’t change the Constitution. You could justly take that person to task for ignoring the law. You couldn’t say that the law permitted his actions.
I don’t think “The Church” means what you seem to think it does. Members of the the RCC can and do behave in ways contrary to the RCC’s teachings. When they’re in positions of authority, that’s particularly irresponsible. But that’s individual behavior, not the official teaching of the RCC.
I am always surprised that people seem to believe so strongly that all Catholics agree with and follow all the teachings of the Church. As you point out, even clergy put their own spin on things. Every individual is different, and we all have our own opinions, which are influenced by the Church to different degrees.
I remember having a discussion here once where I stated that many, if not most, of the loyal churchgoers in my parish are actively pro-choice (politically), and consider themselves Catholics in good standing…I have no doubt at all that many of them have had conversations with a priest (probably our own pastor), who simply tells them to follow their own conscience on the matter. I can’t remember the thread now, but it took some convincing, as I recall, that this has indeed been my experience. This can easily work in the other direction, as well, where a clergyman is over-zealous and uses their influence in a way that they shouldn’t. The fact that the clergyman is high-ranking doesn’t make this behavior right or necessarily reflective of what the Church is supposed to be doing.
They might be behaving “unconstitutionally” but they are still establishing the position of the US through their actions–unless the actions are stopped and punished by the US. A position is revealed through words only until action contradicts them.
So it is only a few rogue cardinals, but where is everybody else in the RCC? Why don’t I hear anyone of rank condemning this?
The silence is deafening.