|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 15, 2019 13:05:51 GMT -5
I am more in line, though not completely, with td128 (surprise to those of you who believe me to be a "flaming liberal"). I don't equate Catholic politicians believing divorce is OK with believing abortion is OK. The Catholic Church has always allowed "divorces" but has made the very fine distinction it is not a divorce, it is an annulment (i.e. the marriage never existed, sometimes/often allowed under the very reasons why a civil divorce is granted). I'll let the lawyers on the board confirm/deny that civilly there are very rare instances of legal annulments, you just get a divorce. And, a separation of two people is much different and much less serious than the taking of a life. That said, my Holy Cross education forces me, as usual, into gray shadings in what might appear to be a black & white situation. While I just can't get my moral head around "abortion on demand" or when a baby (fetus) is "viable" (with medical advances, a shorter and shorter time after conception), I also believe that an abortion can be allowed in self-defense. That is, if a mother's life is in jeopardy, not just a matter of inconvenience, while the baby is truly innocent, I believe there is justification in order to save the life of the mother. I also happen to believe that there are many, many childless couples that would be happy to adopt an "unwanted" child. The good news is that there appear to be fewer and fewer abortions both in relative and absolute numbers. I also recognize that I am not in a position to "cast the first stone" against anyone getting an abortion for whatever reason. But Catholic politicians, like Gov. Gina Raimondo, should not in my opinion be actively encouraging liberalization of abortion laws. As a result, they took down her picture in her high school "hall of fame" of alums at LaSalle, a Catholic high school. Forget being against abortions or even being neutral, she was "all in" for changing the abortion laws in the state. I am assuming the Dean has and will continue to allow this discussion which is tangentially touching on "politics" but it is indeed religion as a subject: "annulment" basically means there was an impediment to the marriage occuring as of the date of the wedding so, no marriage. "divorce" basically means that something occurs after a valid marriage is entered into causing the marriage to "end". valid marriages cannot end under Church law. For a period of time grounds for annulment in the Church were more liberally interpreted so more Church annulments were granted. I know of a couple in the local parish who divorced. I remained on good terms with both the husband and wife. The husband wanted to remarry and "knew people" in the arch-diocese. While talking to the wife at our kids soccer game she told me that she was amazed to learn that her husband sought and received a Church annulment of their marriage without any notice to her to investigae grounds for an annulment. They met each other while undergrad students at U of San Francisco, a jesuit school, and had either 5 or 6 kids during the course of their marriage. She had not moved and still attended church.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 15, 2019 13:24:52 GMT -5
"Elected officials who are Catholic do not jeopardize their relationship with the Church by supporting legislation like the Roe Act anymore than if they support legislation upholding divorce which also contravenes Catholic doctrine."I am not so sure about that, especially given that many legislative bodies have passed legislation approving abortion at any point during the pregnancy and some pols have gone so far as to legitimizing infanticide. So before we roll over and accept this 'anything goes' approach to the treatment of the unborn and how we view pols who would call themselves Catholic in the process, I welcome submitting the following commentary to the debate: This is how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians: catholicherald.co.uk/dailyherald/2019/05/21/this-is-how-to-deal-with-pro-abortion-catholic-politicians/Another bishop shows Dolan what to do about people like Governor Cuomo
It’s rare these days to find Catholics who want to enter into public service as Catholics. Most want to be “personally Catholic” and “publicly Liberal.”
Wherever the Catholic standard does not agree with the constantly shifting standard of “public reason,” for too many Catholic politicians, their faith loses every time. That’s bad for them, for the faith, and for the common good too. It’s bad for Catholic children to see very public Catholic role models teach with their laws things contrary to the Faith they share. It’s bad for non-Catholics to see Catholic politicians teaching to citizens through their legislation things which are untrue and immoral.
For this reason, bishops have an obligation to help hold Catholic politicians to the standard of their own faith. In a recent letter, Bishop Thomas A. Daly of Spokane did just that, writing that Catholic politicians who support abortion must not present themselves for communion at Masses.
Efforts to expand access to abortion, allowing murder of children up to the moment of birth is evil. Children are a gift from God, no matter the circumstances of their conception. They not only have a right to life, but we as a society have a moral obligation to protect them from harm.
The champion of this abortion legislation is Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic and governor of New York. Governor Cuomo frequently cites his Catholic faith in support of legislation he favors. His public witness as a Catholic politician, coupled with his stalwart support of abortion, is unacceptable.
Politicians who reside in the Catholic Diocese of Spokane, and who obstinately persevere in their public support for abortion, should not receive Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church (cf. Canon 915; “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles.” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2004).
Bishop Daly is to be applauded for actually taking his responsibilities as a Bishop seriously enough to use the disciplines of the Church to admonish and teach his flock. However, Bishop Daly doesn’t address any politician in Spokane, but one in the Archdiocese of New York, namely Governor Cuomo.
A spokesman for the Diocese told J.D. Flynn of the Catholic News Agency that Bishop Daly’s letter “is not commenting directly on any one politician in his diocese, but making clear that it is important to understand that the Catholic faith and public abortion advocacy are incompatible. The principle is that if one persists in a public way in supporting abortion access they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion.”
In response to Catholics who demand that Governor Cuomo be excommunicated, Cardinal Dolan has claimed that it would be counter-productive. But perhaps Bishop Daly offers some good fraternal advice to Cardinal Dolan, appealing not to Canons 1398 or 1399 which concern excommunication but to Canon 915, which says that anyone who “obstinately” perseveres in “manifest grave sin” are also not to be admitted to Holy Communion. What could be more manifest, or more gravely sinful, than promoting abortion on demand, the direct intentional killing of human life, legal from conception to the hospital delivery room? What could be more evident than the fact that Governor Cuomo obstinately perseveres, in outward defiance of his own faith.
Cardinal Dolan could write a similar letter which would not be counter-productive, but could on the contrary be an important teaching moment for all.
C C Pecknold is Associate Professor of Theology, and a Fellow of the Institute for Human Ecology, at The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC The champion of this abortion legislation is Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic and governor of New York. Governor Cuomo frequently cites his Catholic faith in support of legislation he favors. His public witness as a Catholic politician, coupled with his stalwart support of abortion, is unacceptable.
It is for Gov Cuomo to decide how he can reconcile the two positions. No one is required to undergo an abortion. We are all free to comply with Church doctrine forbidding abortion. If a law was passed requiring certain groups, situations to undergo abortion then that would be "unacceptable" So we are not at a stage where "anything goes".
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 15, 2019 13:59:46 GMT -5
Moose, I fully understand the technical difference between a divorce and an annulment. Your example, however, is exactly what I meant. It could be and often is a distinction without a difference.
Abortion is another matter and people of good faith can have differences of opinion.
I also understand that laws don't currently exist (thank God) that require anyone to get an abortion. I also understand that a politician can make the argument that they don't personally agree with abortion but would sign a bill to allow abortions (as a governor, for example) theoretically not "imposing" their beliefs on others but also don't think they should, like Raimondo (and others?), have done to actually promote a law for abortion. That's why I could never be a politician and run for office.
It is a matter of belief. Certain things we used to consider objectively moral/immoral. Murder is not a Catholic thing, a Christian thing, or even a religious thing that people object to.
If you don't buy the premise that a viable fetus is a person, it sure makes it a lot easier to be "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" if you prefer. I happen to believe that an unborn child is not just a collection of tissue that can be excised without some significant limitations.
Again, people can and do have a different opinion but I believe true and faithful Catholics should tread more carefully than many have just to be electable.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 15, 2019 16:43:26 GMT -5
Moose, I fully understand the technical difference between a divorce and an annulment. Your example, however, is exactly what I meant. It could be and often is a distinction without a difference. Abortion is another matter and people of good faith can have differences of opinion. I also understand that laws don't currently exist (thank God) that require anyone to get an abortion. I also understand that a politician can make the argument that they don't personally agree with abortion but would sign a bill to allow abortions (as a governor, for example) theoretically not "imposing" their beliefs on others but also don't think they should, like Raimondo (and others?), have done to actually promote a law for abortion. That's why I could never be a politician and run for office. It is a matter of belief. Certain things we used to consider objectively moral/immoral. Murder is not a Catholic thing, a Christian thing, or even a religious thing that people object to. If you don't buy the premise that a viable fetus is a person, it sure makes it a lot easier to be "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" if you prefer. I happen to believe that an unborn child is not just a collection of tissue that can be excised without some significant limitations. Again, people can and do have a different opinion but I believe true and faithful Catholics should tread more carefully than many have just to be electable. ...a viable fetus is a person...
i agree but that is a moving target with advancements in medicine making it very subjective and difficult to define. where to draw the line when the sand keeps shifting? my understanding is that the R.C. Church prohibits any interference to end a pregnancy, viable or not. yet the Church will allow/encourage "interference" that supports development of an unborn child at any stage of development when to do nothing would likely result in the death of the child or no pregnancy for an otherwise barren couple. there is no requirement under Church law requiring expecting parents to take anvantage of any medical advancements that may preserve or save the life of an unborn child. can they simply rely on the power of prayer and grace from God to protect the unborn child? how does this mesh with criminal prosecution of parents for child endangerment when they refuse to vacinate a child to protect against disease?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 15, 2019 16:48:28 GMT -5
Excellent point and that's probably why the Church's position has been from the moment of conception. Certainly that might be scientifically (and legally) debatable but "it is what it is."
I've already said more on this subject than I planned. I'll let others chime in if they so choose.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 15, 2019 20:44:46 GMT -5
Minor point - As I understand it, in the eyes of the Church, there is nothing wrong with getting a civil divorce. The issue is if said person gets married again
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 15, 2019 22:35:43 GMT -5
That hits the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Dec 15, 2019 22:56:58 GMT -5
Coming from my Philosophy background.....the question of when is a fetus a human being will be settled, in the long run, based not on a discovery but on an (implicit) decision manifested by the actions and language of society. I guess you could call that a Behaviorist philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Dec 16, 2019 14:00:20 GMT -5
The important point here, as I see it, is that it is completely possible to respect RC Church teaching on abortion, while at the same time, advocate that the decision must be made by the pregnant woman who is personally affected. I say this because various situations can be quite morally complex, and because we do not have a consensus in society about this question. The issue ultimately comes down to whether or not the state should compel a woman to remain pregnant until delivery against her will.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Dec 16, 2019 14:48:34 GMT -5
Giving birth, and by extension being pregnant, is not just a 100% personal matter of the woman. It is also a social event, the child is an addition to the species. To some extent, Society has an interest in the new addition. And, although this is often ignored, the father of the child has an interest in the pregnancy/birth.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 16, 2019 18:24:48 GMT -5
Why stop at birth, then--let the mother decide up to, say, the child's 1st or 2nd birthday.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 16, 2019 19:01:30 GMT -5
Why stop at birth, then--let the mother decide up to, say, the child's 1st or 2nd birthday. Provided that the child is kept comfortable, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Dec 17, 2019 12:49:44 GMT -5
Why stop at birth, then--let the mother decide up to, say, the child's 1st or 2nd birthday. Assuming your question is serious, it is because the issue is no longer about pregnancy. The same moral complexity and conflict does not arise, and there IS consensus in society that it would be murder.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 17, 2019 13:06:19 GMT -5
...except in NY where a child can be born alive and then be killed if that was the desire if the Mother. I can have empathy for many situations that may prompt a women to decide on an abortion , but Infanticide is something I can never respect.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Dec 17, 2019 13:24:29 GMT -5
I just have never been totally comfortable with the notion that it's 100% the mother's business. Excepting rape, incest, health of the mother, isn't the pregnancy the result of a VOLUNTARY decision by the woman? I don't know the statistics, but don't we know that to some extent abortion is being used as a form of "birth control." To me, the fact that the woman is the vessel of procreation sets her apart as something very special, something men don't share. I believe many "modern" women run away from their reproductive system. They're pissed that they menstruate. They're pissed that they get stuck with upbringing the child whereas the guy can more easily take off. They're pissed that their reproductive role costs them compensation in the workforce, etc. As a result, they're not crazy about men in general. They want to be "equal" with men. IMHO, they're not equal. In some profound ways.....they're better than men. I have three daughters. I want nothing but the best for them and over the years I have put my money with my mouth when it comes to their upbringing, including their education. Unfortunately, Women's Lib, while accomplishing some great things for women, society's perception of their specialness, has also lessened somewhat. I'm staying in the moral realm here. The Legal realm should arise from the Moral realm, not the other way around. Voluntary late term abortion might be legal somewhere but that doesn't make it right. My personal legal position? Aside from rape, incest and health of the mother, voluntary abortions should be legal in the first trimester only. The fact that there is an industry for snuffing out life is repugnant to me. It tears at our moral fabric.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 17, 2019 13:55:20 GMT -5
...except in NY where a child can be born alive and then be killed if that was the desire if the Mother. I can have empathy for many situations that may prompt a women to decide on an abortion , but Infanticide is something I can never respect. ...except in NY where a child can be born alive and then be killed if that was the desire if the Mother.
do you have a citation/authority on this?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 17, 2019 13:55:40 GMT -5
...except in NY where a child can be born alive and then be killed if that was the desire if the Mother. I can have empathy for many situations that may prompt a women to decide on an abortion , but Infanticide is something I can never respect. If you could be so kind as to detail this for me, I would appreciate it. I am not sure what you are referencing.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 17, 2019 14:02:34 GMT -5
I just have never been totally comfortable with the notion that it's 100% the mother's business. Excepting rape, incest, health of the mother, isn't the pregnancy the result of a VOLUNTARY decision by the woman? I don't know the statistics, but don't we know that to some extent abortion is being used as a form of "birth control." To me, the fact that the woman is the vessel of procreation sets her apart as something very special, something men don't share. I believe many "modern" women run away from their reproductive system. They're pissed that they menstruate. They're pissed that they get stuck with upbringing the child whereas the guy can more easily take off. They're pissed that their reproductive role costs them compensation in the workforce, etc. As a result, they're not crazy about men in general. They want to be "equal" with men. IMHO, they're not equal. In some profound ways.....they're better than men. I have three daughters. I want nothing but the best for them and over the years I have put my money with my mouth when it comes to their upbringing, including their education. Unfortunately, Women's Lib, while accomplishing some great things for women, society's perception of their specialness, has also lessened somewhat. I'm staying in the moral realm here. The Legal realm should arise from the Moral realm, not the other way around. Voluntary late term abortion might be legal somewhere but that doesn't make it right. My personal legal position? Aside from rape, incest and health of the mother, voluntary abortions should be legal in the first trimester only. The fact that there is an industry for snuffing out life is repugnant to me. It tears at our moral fabric. 1. As to women being pissed about menstruating, the trend is actually toward normalizing this process. www.womensmediacenter.com/fbomb/normalizing-menstruation-in-the-media2. As to women who are "pissed about being "stuck" with raising a child, I am sure some feel that way but please show me how that is a "modern" phenomenon? If anything, women have many more options today. 3. As to women being "pissed" about the financial cost of losing lifetime earnings to childcare, I don't blame them. Please also know that the fact that women earn less than men is not only a function of childrearing. 4. Your comment that women are "not crazy about men" is a common trope. It is the same prejudice that causes people to criticize successful women for being loud or aggressive when such traits are considered positives in men. 5. "Women's Lib?" Do people still say that? Why did you have to detract from your abortion analysis with this?
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 17, 2019 14:42:25 GMT -5
I just have never been totally comfortable with the notion that it's 100% the mother's business. Excepting rape, incest, health of the mother, isn't the pregnancy the result of a VOLUNTARY decision by the woman? I don't know the statistics, but don't we know that to some extent abortion is being used as a form of "birth control." To me, the fact that the woman is the vessel of procreation sets her apart as something very special, something men don't share. I believe many "modern" women run away from their reproductive system. They're pissed that they menstruate. They're pissed that they get stuck with upbringing the child whereas the guy can more easily take off. They're pissed that their reproductive role costs them compensation in the workforce, etc. As a result, they're not crazy about men in general. They want to be "equal" with men. IMHO, they're not equal. In some profound ways.....they're better than men. I have three daughters. I want nothing but the best for them and over the years I have put my money with my mouth when it comes to their upbringing, including their education. Unfortunately, Women's Lib, while accomplishing some great things for women, society's perception of their specialness, has also lessened somewhat. I'm staying in the moral realm here. The Legal realm should arise from the Moral realm, not the other way around. Voluntary late term abortion might be legal somewhere but that doesn't make it right. My personal legal position? Aside from rape, incest and health of the mother, voluntary abortions should be legal in the first trimester only. The fact that there is an industry for snuffing out life is repugnant to me. It tears at our moral fabric. you tend to ramble somewhat (which is ok by me) but what you say is ill defined. i.e. "rape" do you mean where there are grounds for criminal prosecution (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) or simply where the woman says she was raped and the man says it was consentual sex? if you don't know "statistics" try to look them up so there are facts to back your opinions. your comment that women are "pissed that they menstruate" while men don't is sexist. should men be pissed that they must shave everyday to have a hairless face while women don't? why make voluntary abortions illegal after the first trimester? why draw the line there? or can it be clearly defined to make it enforceable? i do agree with much of what you say but find some comments less than convincing. pax
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 17, 2019 18:48:49 GMT -5
...except in NY where a child can be born alive and then be killed if that was the desire if the Mother. I can have empathy for many situations that may prompt a women to decide on an abortion , but Infanticide is something I can never respect. If you could be so kind as to detail this for me, I would appreciate it. I am not sure what you are referencing. OK, when NY State legislature passed the law allowing "late-term" abortion (at any time up to full term and beyond). Part of the legislation allows the doctor to terminate the life of the aborted child/fetus should it survive the abortion procedure with no legal consequences to. him/her When it ;assed the legislature gave it a standing ovation.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Dec 17, 2019 19:35:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Dec 17, 2019 20:47:18 GMT -5
I wonder how seriously that in today’s world, members of the church follow to the letter, announcements and pronouncements by the bishops, particularly in first world nations. Life in an episcopal bubble has led to a non realistic view of the daily challenge of the average person.
Have they become the teacher in the Charlie Brown movie regarding their relevance in our daily lives?
|
|