www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall John Kerry & Latin Legalism

I don't know if any of us has the "singular sure political path" towards eliminating abortion, any more than anyone had the "singular sure political path" towards eliminating the killing of Jews during the Holocaust. Does that mean that, till we find the perfect 100% solution, we can't oppose political candidates who are in favor of it?

I don't suggest that one need a sure path to take action, just that it would be nice if other paths to this goal were not summarily discounted as sinful.

In "favor" of it?
What fraction of politicians who are termed pro-abortion are actuallly "in favor of it"?

I just wanted to post my opinion. I am not arguing any one else�s. I am a Roman Catholic. I expect the Church to always stand for what it proclaims. I do not believe the Church�s stance on any moral issue should be adhered to without individual reason and conscience. I believe in conservative worship and liberal politics. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice in all maters.

God gave us free will; he did not want the Church or the Government to take it away from us.
God allowed Adam and Eve to use their reason and make their own choices. God sent his Son to save and love His people. Not to set up a Church or legal system that would stop or forbid any wrong doing. Jesus called the sinners TO him, not forbid them to partake in Him. If anyone needs Communion it is the sinner with a faithful heart. God loves his children, even those who are astray. I don't believe God considers wanting freedom for people a sin. And what they do with that freedom is not for us to judge, I leave that up to God.

Lord, Grant us Peace.

Over 90% of all abortions are done for reasons of "convenience". I would say any politician that finds no reason to try to restict those killings by reasonable means (parental notification, 24-hour waiting period, etc.) is in "favor" of abortion as a legitimate means of birth control.

Partial-birth abortions are NEVER medically necessary. Any politician who supports the legality of this procedure is in "favor" of abortion.

By this description, just about the entire national Democratic party would be considered to be "favoring" abortion.

djs - surprisingly, I agree for the most part with your political analysis. I think those of us who are younger and less compromising on this issue look at the way the political parties have treated abortion for the past 30 years (Democrat - promote it so much as to make it a national sacrament; Republican - ignore it and hope it stops being brought up) and see no reason to believe a "political" solution will come anytime soon. The only way, I believe, that abortion will become illegal in this country is if it becomes unthinkable. Someone who supports the legality of abortion, especially a Catholic, should be made to feel very uncomfortable as much as possible. If a Catholic politician knows that he can still get much of the "Catholic vote" and he is "pro-choice", he will never have to be confronted with the horrible reality of abortion. If, however, he is reminded as much as possible how unacceptable this procedure is to Catholics (and hopefully all right-minded people); perhaps one day he will repent of this sinful position.

In all honesty, I don't care if my position on abortion hurts one particular politician or one particular race (for example, by supporting Toomey over Specter) - I am looking over the next 30-40 years. My hope is by then, abortion will be looked upon like we look upon the Jewish Holocaust today. But this will never happen as long as we push the issue under the rug (by relegating it to a "single issue") and continue to let politicians like Kerry and Specter and Kennedy get away with their horrific position.

I think your criteria are not unreasonble. I think that your conclusion about the entire national democratic party however, is wrong.

Dear Friends,

As St Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians, was to have told Cardinal Wolsey (as recorded also in "Man for all Seasons") "I believe when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos. And we shall have my prayers to fall back on."

How one meshes one's convictions on abortion with public policy is quite the moral/philosophical quagmire as indicated by the posts here.

Hal on another thread suggests that lawyers and others swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution, even when it allows for abortion.

It is true that Catholic judges may grant divorces and follow the law of the land in those and other respects. None have yet, to my knowledge, been publicly asked to abstain from Holy Communion as a result.

They may not be in favour of divorce, but as judges they may grant them and divide property etc. according to the law of the land.

Medical doctors and nurses who are pro-life also have the option of not assisting at abortions and there are those who have lost their jobs or else their standing at hospitals for so doing.

As someone who has worked directly for politicians for 18 years (and continues to do so now), I think I understand something about politics.

It is, as djs says it is.

There is no easy answer to any of this - if one likes most of Kerry's other social policies and believes that, overall, he would be better than Bush for the USA, then what is one to do - hold one's nose and vote for him?

Perhaps, I don't know.

I have worked for politicians who were pro-life and yet whose party leadership was content to just not take a position on it or else "leave it between the woman and her doctor."

But this really isn't the political issue up here that it is in the U.S. so it isn't a fair comparison.

The one real danger that I see in all this is when we, as Catholics, begin to do what ST Thomas More counselled us not to do or make the abortion issue a "private matter" divorced from public policy. And that goes for all political stripes.

I condemn no one here or elsewhere. I may only condemn myself. (Unless I overstep the rules on this board, at which case the Administrator will step in and condemn me also . . . )

I also reject the arguments that SEEM to want to lighten the moral issue of abortion as a political issue.

More education on the abortion issue will not necessarily result in fewer abortions as we are all enlightened until we find ourselves in a situation where the "abortion way out" seems best and then we rationalize our actions.

The "social causes" of abortion are not solely those related to poverty.

That is, unfortunately, an historic liberal ideological argument that should have gone the way of the dinosaur before now.

There are all kinds of explanations people have for procuring abortions, many of which have nothing to do with "social issues" or "social pressures" on people to act in this way.

As for education as a way to curb abortions, it is precisely the fact that the poverty issue has been forced upon us in the popular media and even in universities that we are not even given the opportunity to consider other issues.

Society indeed seems to have an ideological bent toward abortion rights.

As for the Constitution argument, we can never assume that any constitution is perfectly humane or else in keeping with general moral principles.

When Thomas More was faced with the compelling necessity to swear to an act that declared the King head of the Church in England, the fact is that More, at first, DID swear to it (something not reflected in the play by Robert Bolt).

Not only did he initially swear to it, but he went around the country getting others to swear to it! He believed this to be legitimate as he added, after the act's wording, "As far as the Law of Christ allows."

Later on, the higher-ups in England realized that More wasn't being perfectly honest in subscribing to the intent of the act . . .

When it comes to abortion policy, we may be against it, we may oppose it, but if we say nothing against it when our party's leader supports it - how can we get away with our consciences whole since we cannot really add More's proviso above at the end of the stated policy?

Can we say we support abortion access for poor women - as far as the law of Christ allows?

The United Nations believed that overpopulation would destroy this planet years ago.

Its artificial birth control policies that it exported to countries like India failed miserably, however.

And this is because the UN was exporting a very white, middle-class view of family life - the nuclear, two-child unit.

For countries that have very little, their children are their wealth. And this is something the West cannot understand.

I don't know the answer to this question.

In fact, as I've said, I think the real issue is how the bishops can rationalize their own position, one that sees them participate in pro-life rallies while refusing to follow Rome's command that is simply quite straightforward.

Perhaps Rome is wrong to get involved in American politics - as one commentator said over the weekend.

All I can say, in the end, is that the picture of an African Cardinal condemning abortion and abortion policies and those who promote them does "kick" at the stated "social conscience" of the liberal democrats who have integrally linked abortion policy to women's rights and social/racial issues.

Perhaps the resolution of this issue lies not within ourselves, but within the voices of the Third World Christians who themselves reject Western equations of what is acceptable in terms of values, family size and developmental policy that are created in the West for export abroad.

If I were an American, as a physician I wouldn't do abortions or assist at them.

As a lawyer, I would swear to uphold the Constitution while muttering "as far as the law of Christ allows" under my breath.

As a political activist of the Catholic Left, I would tell Democratic (or Republican) candidates that there is only one definition of "pro-choice."

And that is to voluntarily choose to support values and policies that engender and protect human life, and not destroy it.

In the end, we need to fall back on some prayers, as St Thomas said.

Gotta go now!

Alex

Hey Alex,

I thought you were off to Paris. I certainly hope you are finding better things to do there than checking in with us!

Dear djs,

Even though I'm off to Paris, I will "Kerry" the memory of you all with me . . .

Alex

MKE - Then what is the point of law at all? What is the point of the Church? By your standards, either we should be in a state of complete anarchy, or there is something about abortion that makes it "a matter of freedom" while other crimes remain subject to law. Which is it, and why?

Christos Voskres!
Voistinu Voskres!

Dear Alex......

GROAN.......

Gaudior, thinking bad puns SHOULD be against law!

C'mon, Alex, don't beat around the "Bush"... whaddaya really think??

With all due respect and reverence to all your enlightened opinions and posts, has anyone ever thought that perhaps the culture of overt sexuality which permeates our lives, our music, our schools, our film, our magazines, our newspapers,and our billboards needs to be attacked as vehemently as abortion? Doesn't anyone think that this 'culture' contributes to the horror of abortion?

As for late term abortion, it is a double SIN...as there are so many couples that want to adopt babies, and a baby in the last trimester is viable outside the womb. The baby is being born through the delivery process anyway, so why not put it into an incubator instead of killing it????????????? Just the thought of this gets me really angry.

Kyrie Eleison!
Alice

We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.

I agree totally! We and I put myself first as the we, do not pray enough for our government officials or our country.. Just as abortion... we laid there and took it lying down. Most of us not savy enough in the nature of politics at the time to realize what was happening to our nation.

And for Kerry, as I stated much earlier in this conversation, he does not realize that he is heaping coals upon his soul, each time he receives the Eucharist unworthily. Well as long as he is supporting abortion he is doing the same thing. The bishops are speaking out and warning him and others, they know that allowing these actions to continue are heaping coals on them too (just as the recent mess has), so for their own salvation they have to speak out and teach the layity to be aware.

Moe, as for my post of Kerry's service in Vietnam, I believe it has everything to do with this conversation. My personal impression, especially after seeing his commercial today, is that he went to Nam (and I am a Vietnam era veteran, so I can talk) with the purpose of leaving there early. He was there just long enough...give me a break 4 months, I knew a lot of people that were there for a very long time with more injury than he had..to get something to draw attention to himself. He has done nothing but contradict himself..I do not trust him. He can't be trusted with the truths of Christ. Come on when you are labled the most liberal senator in Washington...he is not looking to Jesus for his direction, he is looking to the world. The Church better speak up!

Alice I agree with you. When they threw prayer out of the public schools. They just opened up the doors and said come on in satan the schools are jut fine. So much trash began at that point to permeate our schools and the culture of the teens that parents no longer had any control over. WE gave it up! Then the clown of a sentor the other day in congress who didn't say "God" when he led the pledge of allegance...he should be thrown out of congress. I won't finish what I am thinking...as Bush 41 would have said, "wouldn't be prudent" Oh well!

Pani Rose

Though this is not by Kerry, it is a statement on the state of abortion in this country thanks to men like Kerry...

PEGGY NOONAN

'Raisin' and Falling
A 40-year-old play reveals something awful about today's culture.

Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Every now and then you witness a small moment that is actually a big moment. Maybe it alerts you to something surprising that's going on, or maybe it illustrates what you already know but in a new way, one that can't be dodged or avoided.

It happened to me the other day at a play, a press preview of the Broadway revival of Lorraine Hansbury's "Raisin in the Sun." I love this play. I've seen it several times, but I hadn't seen it in years when I settled into my seat.

It has gotten more attention than most shows, mostly because it features the Broadway debut of rap mogul P. Diddy, the former Puff Daddy, who apparently has decided to go by his birth name, Sean Combs. That's how he's listed in the playbill.

The play was wonderful. I urge you to go. It's an important piece of work, and I left moved and excited. I hadn't realized when I first saw it, decades ago, and saw the movie, also decades ago, that "Raisin" was a landmark play. But it is. It captures with wit and heart a great moment in time. It tells of a black family living on the cusp of cultural liberation in 1950s America. We see them face questions of daily life--what is it to be a man, what is familial loyalty?--as they wrestle with great cultural questions. Shall we, as black Americans, assimilate and become like white Americans? Can we turn back to our African roots to find the truth of our people? Does the older generation have a clue what kind of changes are sweeping the young, or are they too busy surviving to feel the winds of change? Are they in the habit of second-class citizenship?

These ideas were new then. It was all untried. Young people would do, and in time history itself would decide if they'd done right.

The family whose story is told is an intact nuclear family. It is clear they are not special because they are intact and functioning--they're average, like everyone else. Everyone works hard--cleaning woman, chauffer--and everyone has dreams. Phylicia Rashad as the mother is transcendent. She is going to make you cry. She's a great actress, and I didn't know it. I thought she was just a persona with a particular kind of dignity, but she is an artist.

Audra McDonald as a young woman married to a ne'er-do-well son is equally brilliant. Sean Combs on the other hand is not a person of artistic talent. The problem is not that he acts like a high school sophomore, though he does--he registers surprise by bulging his eyes and making an O with his mouth. It's that the thing for which he has become famous--strutting and rapping with a jaded slack-jawed look--is not a facet of his talent but the whole of it. When he sings a snatch of song you realize, Oh my God, he can't even sing. I thought rappers could sing but choose not to. Who knew?

But here's a funny thing: there's something moving in it when you realize that he made it as a star in America through sheer will, through a bulldozer's determination. That also is something you get from God, and he got a lot. It took guts for him to do Broadway and bring new people into the theater for the first time, so I suspect he'll get a pass from the critics. This play is going to be a hit because he's in it. (At the curtain call he gallantly kissed Ms. Rashad and then Ms. McDonald--and Ms. McDonald got this look on her face that said, "Don't gallantly bend to kiss my little cheek when I just carried your sorry ass for three hours.")


I was so moved by the show in part because the audience was full of people who were not your basic Broadway theatergoing types. They had come for P. Diddy and found themselves enthralled by a play. They were so responsive that in a scene where a mother slaps her daughter the whole audience went "Oh!" So did I. When the character based on Lorraine Hansbury breaks out in a tribal dance we didn't just laugh with delight, we hooted and hollered. The audience was alive. It was so moving and got me kind of choked. I thought, Maybe this is like what it was like when Shakespeare wrote, "You tell him, Romeo--Juliet no, don't!"
But I must tell you of the small moment that was actually a big moment. (There's a possible spoiler coming up, so if you don't know the story and mean to see the play, stop here.) An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. In fact, she tells her mother-in-law, she's already put $5 down with the local abortionist. It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment--a cry of pain from a woman who's tired of hoping that life will turn out well.

But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. The reaction seemed to startle the actors on stage, and shake their concentration. I was startled. I turned to my friend. "We have just witnessed a terrible cultural moment," I said. "Don't I know it," he responded.

And I can't tell you how much that moment hurt. To know that the members of our audience didn't know that the taking of a baby's life is tragic--that the taking of your own baby's life is beyond tragic, is almost operatic in its wailing woe.

But our audience didn't know. They reacted as if abortion were a political question. They thought that the fact that the young woman was considering abortion was a sign of liberation. They thought this cry of pain was in fact a moment of self-actualizing growth.

Afterwards, thinking about it, I said to my friend, "When that play opened that plot point was understood--they knew it was tragic. And that was only what, 40 years ago." He said, "They would have known it was tragic even 25 years ago."

And it gave me a shiver because I knew it was true.


Lorraine Hansbury died in the mid-1960s when she was only 35 years old. She didn't know how things would turn out. She didn't know that a poor family that is also a nuclear family would seem exceptional, that a young black intellectual could indeed become a person of substance and respect, a doctor, and that this, 35 years later, would not seem unusual. That the struggle for racial equality would also be a long one, with many twists and turns.
She would be surprised perhaps by how some of the dramatic themes she introduced played out. The whole play is about moral choices--taking chances to make things better. She had a moral mind. She thought the great question of her time was whether the different races in America could learn to treat each other with justice and grace. I can't imagine she'd guess that members of an eager audience in the year 2004 would have become such moral dullards that we wouldn't understand something as basic as an abortion, and what it is. If she were alive now I wonder if she would be surprised, or shocked, that that moment no longer worked as a dramatic plot point because the audience had changed so much in its understanding of the basics.

So much progress followed the 1960s, in so many ways, but applauding abortion isn't progress. It's ugly. And I'm writing this with an odd little hope. That you might go see this great play, and when the moment comes that the young woman announces she might end the life of the child she is carrying, that you would sit quietly and think about what that moment means. And if anyone cheers or hoots or hollers, give them a look. Let them see your silence. Lead with it. Help the people around you realize: Something big is being spoken of here. And we know what it is. And it is nothing good.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays

Dearest Pani Rose,

Thank you for that article. It is very moving, in the way that only Peggy Noonan can be moving.

Praying that you are well....

With love in Christ,
Alice