Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Evil, yes, but not at all stupid.
It’s all a question of what you can get away with and pretending to have integrity matters almost not at all to such political shills. Why let yourself be defeated by a “technicality” in a referendum? Go on; be a Hero; who cares; change the law anyway. “There is a Tide in the affairs of men/ which, taken at the Flood, leads on to Fortune”, sang the Poet.
And once changed, the Law will not be changed back. We hurtle on, scarcely noticing, lulled to sleep by a thousand, thousand comforts, toward an appalling destiny–guided by the unerring hand of the Prince of This World. “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” asked the Muse of Ireland.
His Name is Legion.
Our Lady of Fatima, who promised, that “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved”, pray for us.
From the article: “Portugal is 94% Catholic. ”
This battle was the Lord’s and so will the war be, but I fear for other battles when, on the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, who blessed Portugal in such a special way in Fatima 90 years ago, between 30 and 60% of the Portuguese voted for the killing of children to “modernize” Portugal.
Our Lady of Fatima, intercede for Portugal and your Son’s Church.
It may very well be wrong to have an abortion. That does not necessarily mean however that it is right to force a woman to not have an abortion. Just because x is wrong does not mean that necessarily any and all attempts to prevent x are right. If a particular means to prevent x is intrinsically evil, it would be wrong to prevent x by that means. A particular means to prevent x may also be extrinscially evil if for instance it causes more evil than good (refraining from using a non-intrinsically evil means to save someone’s life is not intrinsically evil; if it were then anyone who does not donate all they can to save the starving in foreign lands would be doing something intrinsically evil)
I am not certain but it strikes me as a violation of a woman’s freedom over her own body — the unborn is indisputably within her body — to force her to not have an abortion and force her to give birth. It can even be described as barbaric. Even if the abortion itself is also barbaric, that does not per above negate the barbarism of forcing a woman to give birth, forcing her body to do something against her will.
In any event, Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger noted in a letter to a Cardinal that a Catholic may support the legalization of abortion for “proportionate” reasons. So if making abortion illegal causes more societal ill than well-being, then one can support abortion’s legalization — just as one might support the legalization of illicit drugs (even ones that would be an abuse to use in any amount) as William F Buckley does if one thinks it causes more ill (such as organized crime) to keep them illegal.
So if making abortion illegal causes more societal ill than well-being, then one can support abortion’s legalization — just as one might support the legalization of illicit drugs (even ones that would be an abuse to use in any amount) as William F Buckley does if one thinks it causes more ill (such as organized crime) to keep them illegal.
Yeah, sure John, I can’t wait until they legalize illegal drugs since, most likely, there’ll be greater good coming out of its legalization than there is in their being illegal.
Imagine the easier accessibility to such illegal drugs that everybody will have — including children!
Whoppeee!!!
Once they’re legalized, all our kids can do drugs and enjoy since they’re no longer illegal!!!
Imagine the nice boost in violent crimes committed due to the chemical effects of such various illegal drugs in their abusers!!!
Yup, you’re right; there’s certainly greater societal harm done by having such drugs illegal versus having them legal!
It’ll be a blast!
So if making abortion illegal causes more societal ill than well-being, then one can support abortion’s legalization — just as one might support the legalization of illicit drugs (even ones that would be an abuse to use in any amount) as William F Buckley does if one thinks it causes more ill (such as organized crime) to keep them illegal.
Yeah, sure John, I can’t wait until they legalize illegal drugs since, most likely, there’ll be greater good coming out of its legalization than there is in their being illegal.
Imagine the easier accessibility to such illegal drugs that everybody will have — including children!
Whoppeee!!!
Once they’re legalized, all our kids can do drugs and enjoy since they’re no longer illegal!!!
Imagine the nice boost in violent crimes committed due to the chemical effects of such various illegal drugs!!!
Yup, you’re right; there’s certainly greater societal harm done by having such drugs illegal versus having them legal!
It’ll be a blast!
“In any event, Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger noted in a letter to a Cardinal that a Catholic may support the legalization of abortion for “proportionate” reasons.”
He did NOT. He said that a Catholic may, with proportionate reason, vote for a CANDIDATE who supports abortion. It is ALWAYS wrong to support the legalization of abortion.
A proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is when the opposing candidate supports assisted suicide or is another adolf hitler.
“He did NOT. He said that a Catholic may, with proportionate reason, vote for a CANDIDATE who supports abortion.”
You are right and I apologize, but I still maintain my position that one can support the legalization of abortion.
Not punishing those who procure abortions (and thus making it legal due to lack of enforcement if anything else) and not punishing those who perform abortions is surely not intrinsically evil. Many pro-lifers in fact are against punishing women who procure abortions. So if it’s alright to not punish the women, why wouldn’t it also be non-intrinsically evil or even alright to not punish the physicians?
John,
You are right and I apologize, but I still maintain my position that one can support the legalization of abortion
A Catholic may not hold this position because a procured abortion is an intrinsic evil.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“…I still maintain my position that one can support the legalization of abortion.”
Sure. One is free to support any position one wants. And God respects our freedom of choice. Of course, God’s respect for our freedom of choice is called Hell.
Of course, God’s respect for our freedom of choice is called Hell.
bill912,
I think you may have inadvertently made God sound like a dictator here.
Just to clarify, it is not God who condemns us to Hell; but that it is we who actually choose Hell by our very actions and by the very choices we make in our lives.
Those wacky socialists.
And that wacky John.
“Just to clarify, it is not God who condemns us to Hell; but that it is we who actually choose Hell”
I think that was Bill’s point.
Real freedom. Real consequences.
I think that was Bill’s point.
Tim J.:
I kinda figured that was the case but had to clarify because of how he put it:
Of course, God’s respect for our freedom of choice is called Hell.
In this context (when read in a certain way), it almost appears that God is but a dictator (which I knew wasn’t the intention of bill at all and why I went on to clarify the issue) and that the so-called respect God has for those of us who proceed contrary to His wishes is Hell.
However, again, it is not God who condemns us to Hell because we go against His Will; but that it is we who choose Hell because of the choices we make that manifest these consequences.
Put it this way, when you read Bill’s statement:
Of course, God’s respect for our freedom of choice is called Hell.
It’s almost like my telling you:
My respect for your freedom of choice is called prison.
Inocencio,
Is it your understanding that it is Church teaching that all intrinsic evils must be criminalized?
“A Catholic may not hold this position because a procured abortion is an intrinsic evil.”
So is lying — all lying not just perjury — an intrinsic evil according to Church teaching. Does that mean that a Catholic may not hold that lying ought to be legal? But not all lying is a grave sin, so perhaps you mean that everything that is gravely and intrinsically evil ought to be criminalized. But then contraception is intrinsically evil according to Catholic teaching (it is also like lying said to be against natural law) and contraception is considered gravely sinful. So then according to your reasoning, contraception ought to be criminalized.
“Inocencio,
Is it your understanding that it is Church teaching that all intrinsic evils must be criminalized?”
I’m glad someone has already pointed out the consequences of his reasoning.
It’s not Inocencio’s reasoning, but Church teaching that states that procuring an abortion is an intrinsic evil. There is nothing I know of in the Catechism that states all intrinsic evils must be criminalized. But if you want to be on the side of the sheep instead of the goats, you better do your part to work for justice on the part of the unborn, and seek legitimate ends to abortion. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren” is what Christ commanded.
Abortion is an intrinsic evil – the Church has taught this since the beginning. Get used to it, cos the Church will always teach it until the end of time.
Mike Petrik and Anon.,
It is my understanding that since abortion is intrinsically evil a Catholic may not support its legalization. What part of the Catechism did you not understand?
All intrinsic evils are a crime against God even if a government does not recognize that fact.
I look forward to your reasonable response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John writes: “It may very well be wrong to have an abortion.”
May?
He continues: “That does not necessarily mean however that it is right to force a woman to not have an abortion.”
Here’s one flaw in your terminology. You can’t “force” someone to NOT have an abortion. The fact is that pregnancy normally leads to birth. The “force” exerted is Nature’s.
That was probably neither here nor there. The main point I’d like to put forth has to do with terminology, however.
“Abortion” is a technical term for a type of murder, in the same way that “infanticide” or “fratricide” are technical terms for types of murder.
Given that this is the case, in the above sentence, let’s replace the specific term “abortion” with the general term “murder.” Then, let’s gender-neutralize it. (I know how much you PC hippies love that.) You’d get these sentences:
“It may very well be wrong to murder. That does not necessarily mean however that it is right to force an individual to not murder.”
Which is ridiculous on its face.
jared,
You bring up an excellent point. Correct terminology is very important. I need to correct my own;
It is my understanding that since abortion is intrinsically evil a Catholic may not support its decriminalization.
Now more directly to my reasoning that a Catholic cannot support the decriminalization of abortion.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.(emphasis added)
The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Indeed, 10:14:02.
Larry, you assume too much.
Inocencio, you are more likely to elicit reasonable responses if you refrain from intemperate provocations like “What part of the Catechism did you not understand?”.
As a long time St. Blogs commentator, it is well-established that I passionately oppose legalized abortion. And further, I cannot imagine supporting or voting for a pro-choice candidate, at least if there is a credible pro-life option. And I am very distressed that so many “Catholics” are so willing to rationalize their support for legal abortion or pro-choice candidates. All that said, I do think that it is intellectually possible to be earnestly pro-life, understanding abortion to be a serious intrinsic evil, but nonetheless oppose immediate criminalization and/or support pro-choice candidates for public office. There are fair prudential considerations that could lead a reasonable person of good faith to these conclusions. Make no mistake, however; I think the vast majority of such cases are simply bad faith (i.e., insincere) rationalizations that are grounded in the false belief that the limited evil of abortion must give way to, or at least be mitigated by, false notions of privacy or autonomy. Nonetheless, I just don’t think it is intellectually accurate to say that one cannot oppose the criminalization of abortion and still be sincerely pro-life and as well as a good Catholic.
Man’s positive law should be informed by, and be compatable with, God’s Natural Law, but I do not believe that it is Catholic teaching they must be identical.
Innocencio:
About what you said:
I need to correct my own;
It is my understanding that since abortion is intrinsically evil a Catholic may not support its decriminalization.
Are you then saying that in a case where Abortion is, in fact, legal a Catholic need not support its criminalization (i.e., make it illegal)?
I can understand where LarryD and Anon are coming from, but you, on the other hand, seem to be acquiescing to peer pressure, which I would not have expected from you of all people.
Mike Petrik,
“All that said, I do think that it is intellectually possible to be earnestly pro-life, understanding abortion to be a serious intrinsic evil, but nonetheless oppose immediate criminalization and/or support pro-choice candidates for public office.”
Thank you for you introduction. I apologize for my intemperate provocation.
How do you reconcile your understanding with the DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau,
I am saying that we “say” abortion is “legal” when it was actually decriminalized. Abortion should be recognized for the criminal act that it is and always has been regardless of what our country’s civil law decrees.
I hope that clears up what I attempted to say.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Abortion should be recognized for the criminal act that it is and always has been regardless of what our country’s civil law decrees.
That sounds more like the Innocencio I know.
Thanks for the clarification.
Fair question, Inocencio.
“It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.”
Read carefully, this Declaration prohibits one from obeying, campaigning for, or voting for any law that would require a person to commit, or cooperate in the commission of, an immoral act. The subsequent example of a law mandating cooperation by physicians in an abortion is a good one since obedience to such a law would require participation in an immoral act. The absence of a law criminalizing abortion is not an example that comes within the Declaration, as such, since no law exists that would mandate participation in an immoral act.
Hope that helps.
Mike Petrik,
No it doesn’t.
As DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION states;
“It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.”[20]
I stand by comment you cannot support abortion, period.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike: I know that I probably muddied the waters with talk of proper terminology, but what I said was meant to simplify things, not complicate them with what amounts (in the eyes of many) to a question of “What can I get away with?” The propogation of this idea that a pro-life individual can support a pro-abortion candidate because that person supports the economic or healthcare policy that one wishes to believe in might or might not be your intention. But that is the end result, the (perhaps) illogical conclusion, of your statement about criminalization.
You wrote: “… I do think that it is intellectually possible to be earnestly pro-life … but nonetheless … support pro-choice candidates for public office.”
I’ve taken out a few phrases here to show you what some will read in this statement. The insincere will be able to rationalize all the more easily in light of this statement, especially since you don’t say under what circumstances this could occur. Again, it will end up boiling down to “What can I get away with?” and “How can I salve my conscience?” and “How can I, who call myself Catholic, justify voting for (for example) John Kerry?”
Terminology aside, we need to work toward the passage of those laws which need to be passed in order to end this Holocaust and restore proper justice and order. We cannot go on voting for candidates who won’t work to end the scourge of abortion, even if we support their stands on other policies.
In other words, “the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions.”
This can only enflame His wrath.
Exurge Deus!
Tempus Faciendi!
Noli Tardare!
Inocencio,
Of course one cannot support abortion, but that is not the precise question at issue, which is: is it possible for there to exist circumstances under which it would be morally permissable to disfavor the criminalization of abortion. While I think the circumstances required may be somewhat far-fetched, I do not think they are necessarily impossible, and I do not think that the Declaration addresses this question. For example, if one honestly believed that the immediate enactment of stricter abortion laws would result in a backlash that would in turn result in even more liberal abortion laws, and perhaps make effective legal prohibition more distant and difficult, then I do not think disfavoring such an immediate enactment would be morally impermissible. This is not consequentialism precisely because supporting a law that does not mandate immoral acts is not intrinsically evil. In contradistinction, supporting the commission of an abortion because, for whatever reasons, it would result in less abortions would be impermissible because one cannot commit an intrinsically evil act even if it is so that good may come from it.
You seem to believe that the moral fact that abortion is an intrinsic evil necessarily means that disfavoring the criminalization of abortion must similarly be an intrinsic evil. While it is certainly reasonable to speculate that the latter proposition is a logical inference demanded by the former, you have offered no logical argument to support such an inference, and your appeal to authority (i.e., the Declaration) falls well short as well. You may be right, Inocencio, but I am unconvinced.
Finally, the notion that it is morally required that states enact positive laws criminalizing all intrinsically evil acts is certainly not what St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught.
Inocencio,
Of course one cannot support abortion, but that is not the precise question at issue, which is: is it possible for there to exist circumstances under which it would be morally permissable to disfavor the criminalization of abortion. While I think the circumstances required may be somewhat far-fetched, I do not think they are necessarily impossible, and I do not think that the Declaration addresses this question. For example, if one honestly believed that the immediate enactment of stricter abortion laws would result in a backlash that would in turn result in even more liberal abortion laws, and perhaps make effective legal prohibition more distant and difficult, then I do not think disfavoring such an immediate enactment would be morally impermissible. This is not consequentialism precisely because supporting a law that does not mandate immoral acts is not intrinsically evil. In contradistinction, supporting the commission of an abortion because, for whatever reasons, it would result in less abortions would be impermissible because one cannot commit an intrinsically evil act even if it is so that good may come from it.
You seem to believe that the moral fact that abortion is an intrinsic evil necessarily means that disfavoring the criminalization of abortion must similarly be an intrinsic evil. While it is certainly reasonable to speculate that the latter proposition is a logical inference demanded by the former, you have offered no logical argument to support such an inference, and your appeal to authority (i.e., the Declaration) falls well short as well. You may be right, Inocencio, but I am unconvinced.
Finally, the notion that it is morally required that states enact positive laws criminalizing all intrinsically evil acts is certainly not what St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught.
Sorry for the double post. My first entry was slow to take and I thought I aborted in time.
Jared, as indicated in my very first post I am well aware that many Catholics rationalize their political support for pro-abort candidates or policies. That does not alter the fact that it simply is not Church teaching that one may never vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate. Catholics are permitted to properly take into account all moral matters and give them prudential assessments and weight. Please understand, I do disagree with the theory that voting for a pro-life Senatorial or Presidential candidate doesn’t matter much because 30 years of attempting this stategy has been fairly ineffective, but such a theory is not unreasonable. And a Catholic who believes this in good faith may well decide to accord a candidate’s position on this issue lesser weight simply because he believes it will have little or no effect, and instead assign greater weight to other, even lesser, issues because he believes that the candidate’s positions on those issues will actually mean something — i.e., have effect. Don’t get me wrong, I honestly beleive that most Catholics who claim to be pro-life but vote pro-choice are doing so not just because of this permissible prudential calculus, but also because they impermissibly assign insufficent gravity to the seriousness of the evil of abortion. But I don’t think that “most” means “all,” and I think we must be logical, precise, measured and fair.
Mike Petrik,
“is it possible for there to exist circumstances under which it would be morally permissable to disfavor the criminalization of abortion.”
Think what you want.
But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.
Being pro-life does not mean developing arguments that allow abortion to continue as a decriminalized act in our country or giving “catholics” who support the crime of abortion a free pass.
You might think you are not giving them a free pass, you can even say that is not what you are doing but we know that “catholics” who support abortion agree with any argument that allows them to “think” they can support pro-abortion candidates.
“Finally, the notion that it is morally required that states enact positive laws criminalizing all intrinsically evil acts is certainly not what St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught.”
You brought this separate subject up when you knew I was speaking specifically about a Catholic supporting the “legalization” of abortion. You admitted a Catholic cannot support abortion and on that point we are in agreement.
You have given you opinion on the CCC and the DELCARATION ON PROCURRED ABORTION but you haven’t quoted anything that supports your opinion but yourself.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike Petrik,
“is it possible for there to exist circumstances under which it would be morally permissable to disfavor the criminalization of abortion.”
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY
Donum Vitae
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights. The law cannot tolerate – indeed it must expressly forbid – that human beings, even at the embryonic stage, should be treated as objects of experimentation, be mutilated or destroyed with the excuse that they are superfluous or incapable of developing normally.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sorry the above quote is from section III. MORAL AND CIVIL LAW
THE VALUES AND MORAL OBLIGATIONS
THAT CIVIL LEGISLATION
MUST RESPECT AND SANCTION IN THIS MATTER
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike Petrik:
About what you said:
This is not consequentialism precisely because supporting a law that does not mandate immoral acts is not intrinsically evil.
So, to you, it would be permissible if the State actually legalized murder so long as it doesn’t mandate it???
In what you said, it would appear that a law that would permit murder is, in fact, acceptable so long as it doesn’t mandate it.
Esau,
If I understand Mike Petrik correctly not only would it be permissible (in his opinion) but a Catholic could support it.
Mike Petrik,
I take back my comment about “Think what you want.”
Instead I recommend reading the CCC on Scandal.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau,
If I understand Mike Petrik correctly not only would it be permissible (in his opinion) but a Catholic could support it.
Innocencio:
Awesome! Can’t wait to support measures that go into legalizing murder — oh wait, too late!
Isn’t that “abortion”???
Now, if only they could expand the scope of permissible murder to adults and not just infants!
After all, such laws are, in fact, just and acceptable so long as they don’t mandate that we commit them!
Esau,
If I understand Mike Petrik correctly not only would it be permissible (in his opinion) but a Catholic could support it.
Innocencio:
Awesome! Can’t wait to support measures that go into legalizing murder — oh wait, too late!
Isn’t that “abortion”???
Now, if only they could expand the scope of permissible murder to adults and not just infants!
After all, such laws are, in fact, just and acceptable so long as they don’t mandate that we commit them!
Crud, double posts!
Anyway, going back to what I said previously:
Mike Petrik —
About what you said:
This is not consequentialism precisely because supporting a law that does not mandate immoral acts is not intrinsically evil.
So, to you, it would be permissible if the State actually legalized murder so long as it doesn’t mandate it???
In what you said, it would appear that a law that would permit murder is, in fact, acceptable so long as it doesn’t mandate it.
Hypothetically, I think so.
Now, as I understand Catholic teaching the foremost role of the state is to protect its citizens, which means that laws punishing murder would be necessary and appropriate absent some circumstance (admittedly bizarre) that would render such laws somehow morally counter-productive. I think that the rule is that the state may not make any law that requires the commission of an immoral act. In addition, the state is obligated to work to prevent immoral acts, and laws are useful for this purpose. But which laws should be enacted in this respect requires a prudential calculus. In some cases that calculus is so plain and simple (such as the case of murder) that people understandably hardly even consider it, since it is unnecessary as a practical matter. Technically, though, I believe that laws punishing or criminalizing behavior, even intrinsically immoral behavior, are always subject to a prudential calculus. We outlaw murder not only because it is intrinsically evil, but because we believe, correctly, that criminalization of it is effective at preventing murder and we are unaware of adverse ancillary consequences that would produce greater evils (which seems pretty obvious). We do not, however, outlaw all intrinsically immoral things, because prudential considerations tell us that in some cases such prohibitions would either be ineffective or would somehow introduce greater evils. The case for outlawing abortion is admittedly extremely strong, and I am skeptical of any argument that would suggest that such a law would be utterly ineffective or in some way introduce greater evils. But I hypothesized one example above involving the risk of a counter-productive backlash. The fact that you and I both agree that such a risk seems pretty remote and outlandish is, in essence, an agreement on a prudential consideration. Technically, I suppose I cannot rule out the possiblity that a Catholic could hold such a belief in good faith, however.
The more plausible case would involve the Catholic who votes for a pro-choice political candidate over a pro-life political candidate, despite his desire to both stop abortion and make it illegal, because he believes, in good faith, that the election of the particular pro-life candidate in question will not, in fact, advance the pro-life cause, but the election of his opponent will advance other, quite probably less important, causes that are good and moral. As I’ve explained before, I understand perfectly well that many, probably most, Catholics who claim to hold this type of view are impermissibly rationalizing their decisions; but I don’t believe all are. The fact that I disagree with those pro-life Catholics who arrive at such a decision in good faith is actually a disagreement grounded in prudence, not dogma or even doctrine.
But hey, I could be wrong.
I probably should add that I’m inclined to think that a state does have an affirmative obligation to criminalize intrinsically immoral acts in the absence of reasonable prudential considerations that mitigate otherwise, and that such a hypothesis would seem to be especially compelling with respect to acts that are seriously or gravely immoral, such as abortion. It would seem to follow, therefore, that citizens must support such criminalization subject to the same rules, which is consistent with my earlier posts.
Mike Petrik,
You said “the precise question at issue, which is: is it possible for there to exist circumstances under which it would be morally permissable to disfavor the criminalization of abortion”
The CCC in para. 2273, quoting Donum Vitae III, states:
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”
I cannot see how you can reconcile your understanding with the CCC or Donum Vitae. To me it sounds like you are saying, “Personally I am opposed to abortion, but I will not impose my views on others.”
The Second Vatican Council, in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (51), called abortion an unspeakable crime.
Donum Vitae (22) states:
“It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
You think you could be wrong and I am convinced you are wrong. The worst part is you could lead others to believe they can support abortion regardless of what the Church teaches.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike wrote: “In some cases that calculus is so plain and simple (such as the case of murder) that people understandably hardly even consider it, since it is unnecessary as a practical matter. … We outlaw murder not only because it is intrinsically evil, but because we believe, correctly, that criminalization of it is effective at preventing murder and we are unaware of adverse ancillary consequences that would produce greater evils (which seems pretty obvious).”
Did I miss something? Abortion IS a form of murder.
Mike, your posts are filled with phrases such as “please understand” and “don’t get me wrong,” but, as Inocencio points out with the reference to scandal, upon reflecting upon your words, people will misunderstand and get you wrong, or they will, at least, misunderstand and get the Church wrong on her teachings.
But again, I’d like to ask, did I miss something in your commentary on murder? Do you classify abortion as anything other than murder?
Pope: Weak are at mercy of others when laws not based on morality
Feb-12-2007
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — When laws are based on compromise or consensus instead of moral values, anyone too weak or without a voice to participate in the debate is left at the mercy of others, Pope Benedict XVI said.
The most basic expression of natural law, he said, is “to do good and avoid evil” and from that flows a recognition of other values, such as respect for human life and dignity, freedom, justice and solidarity.
Rather than be inclined or hypothesize about good and evil we need “to do good and avoid evil” when we cast our vote.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mike Petrik:
Going back to my previous post below:
The subsequent response you provided can be characterized as nothing more than mere obfuscation.
Please attend to the heart of the matter by providing a direct answer to the concerns presented to you.
I did, Esau.
It is plain that I am incapable of communicating with either you or Inocencio, and I regret this. But I will no longer waste my time.
Mike Petrik,
What about Jared’s questions? or are they a waste of your time too?
“I’d like to ask, did I miss something in your commentary on murder? Do you classify abortion as anything other than murder?”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
It is plain that I am incapable of communicating with either you or Inocencio, and I regret this.
I regret this as well.
Please note, I only said that the subsequent response you provided can be characterized as nothing more than mere obfuscation; I was not saying that this was actually the case.
Although, the manner in which you had presented your arguments would make it seem as if you were engaging in such tactics; therefore, I wanted to provide you with the opportunity to clarify your position since it appears even from both Jared’s and Innocencio’s posts above, there is, in fact, the need for such.
A straightforward answer is often the best one especially in cases where you want to make your point known to your audience.
Further to my post above, I believe that had you not gone a circumlocutory route in terms of your explanation and simply responded with a straightforward answer, your audience would not have only respected you for this but would also know where you, in fact, stand as regards these issues.