www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall CATHOLIC VOTING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

To decide what? Say it, and what it entails. "...simply allows a woman" is also vague, and vague is innocuous; it's a very specific woman with a specific relationship to two others. I am astounded by a perception that it not just allows but simply allows the woman to end the life of one declared to be a non-person who is equally related to another, not just "a woman."

Did not the southern states simply want just such a non-coercive solution? Like the autonomous woman, just let each sovereign state decide for itself, exercise its right to choose. No coercion so no reason then for secession and a civil war. Of course the issue went deeper, and that is the point.

Thank you, Andy, for your concise and thought provoking analysis. For further reading, I would recommend Jeffrey Sach's masterful book, "The Price of Civilization".

[quote=ajk][ To decide what? Say it, and what it entails. "...simply allows a woman" is also vague, and vague is innocuous; it's a very specific woman with a specific relationship to two others. I am astounded by a perception that it not just allows but simply allows the woman to end the life of one declared to be a non-person who is equally related to another, not just "a woman."

The "simply" I used was in reference to the Supreme Court decision, not to the pain and enormity of a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy or not. I find no merit in being specific about the details. More specifically, Roe v Wade prohibited states from drawing up legislation that limited a woman's right to decide up to the point of the third trimester or quickening, as it was once called.

The South had such a non-coercive solution in the second paragraph, Section 2, of the IV Article of the US Constitution. It was amended at a great price.

The bottom line on abortion is that it is Judeo Catholic/Christian Moral issue based of the 5th Commandment "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER".

Whether the life inside it's mothers womb is human or not
I refer to "The Visitation of Mary" "Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting the CHILD leapt in her womb, and she was filled with the Holy Spirit [Luke 1:41]."
This child was John The Baptist.

The foundation of America was based on THE LAWS OF GOD aka THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!
The laws of America should always follow.

Whether roe verse wade gets overthrown in the future is up to the Divine will of God through His Mother's intersession.
The Catholic Doctrine is that Abortion like murder is a Mortal Sin.
Any Catholic who votes for anyone that allows Abortion inside and now even outside the mothers womb to continue is an accomplice in that murder
and is committing a Mortal Sin also!

Our Catholic Bishops including our own Byzantine Catholic Bishops are "AFRAID" to reiterate this, like Peter was once afraid to say that he knew Jesus .

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!

I appreciate your fervor toward pro-Life. I think the bishop's concern is that being "pro-life" in the public sphere in the USA, includes directly or indirectly supporting certain politics and political persons with whom they do not fully wish to associate. For example, I'll grant that Republicans in general are more "pro-life" regarding Abortion, but anti-life when it comes to the Death Penalty and some would argue socio-economic issues. Democrats are pro-abortion as a platform, but anti-death penalty and normally more in line with the Catholic idea of subsidiarity. The question every Catholic with these moral qualms needs to argue within him/her self is which individual or group, at this time and place, deserves a vote or at least a denial of a vote based on the totality of these. It's not as black and white as many funded-religious-show Catholics tend to present. Being "pro-Life" and reducing and eliminating abortion should be on the mind of every Catholic, however, the means to get there is where we often part ways.

The problem, once again, with this line of thought is that it lacks a consideration of proportion. Repeating what I said above:
It is this very loss of proportion that is exhibited in the (Michael_Thoma) post above .

The euphemism that obscures: "to terminate her pregnancy or not." That doesn't sound so bad, rather clinical. And just a "decision," just her call to make as she wants.
But here it is the Devil that is in the details. There is plenty of merit, aka the terrible truth. You just can't say it, can you?

Once again, "... woman's right to decide." To decide WHAT? No euphemisms please. That you can't say it tells me your heart is in the right place but not your head.

Do you not see the manipulation in the often repeated "woman's right to decide." Who would want to deprive others of their "rights"?

I do not see the phrase as manipulative, nor am I using euphemism within the context of a Constitutional decision made by the Supreme Court. Less euphemistically, abortion is the destruction of a human life, a developing child. I consider that murder and a heinous crime, as you obviously do. As the law stands now, there is no consensus on what we consider to be mortally sinful and a crime. The law remains neutral and so, under law, puts the burden on the woman and her physician to decide if this is the right course of action to be taken, whether we or others think it is criminal. This is the case in Catholic Italy and Ireland, Orthodox Greece and Russia, and about 98% of countries around the world.

"The law remains neutral and so, under law, puts the burden on the woman and her physician to decide if this is the right course of action to be taken, whether we or others think it is criminal. This is the case in Catholic Italy and Ireland, Orthodox Greece and Russia, and about 98% of countries around the world."

Once again, as a Catholic who cares about your above statement?
The only Law concerning abortion murder is the Law of God in the 5th Commandment "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" !
And if a Catholic votes for anyone who implements abortion murder inside and now outside their mothers wombs they are morally complicit in abortion murder,
that breaks the 5th Commandment and thus as a Catholic IS COMMITTING A MORTAL SIN!

This is Catholic Theological Moral Law that must be re iterated to Catholics by all Catholic Bishops BEFORE NOV 3.
Especially for this election.

END OF STORY.

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!

You can choose to over simplify Thou Shalt not Murder to only narrowly mean abortion, but that's not the Church's position. Abortion is murder, but not only abortion is murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_that_cry_to_Heaven_for_Vengeance

The expression is referenced in the Christian Bible, particularly in Genesis 4:10 ("The Lord said to Cain ... the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth"), Genesis 18:20–21, Exodus 22:21–23, and Deuteronomy 24:14–15.[1] The sins are numbered either as being four or being seven; they are listed as follows:[2]

The "blood of Abel": homicide, abortion, infanticide, fratricide, patricide, and matricide[3]
The "sin of the Sodomites": Non procreative sexual acts (sodomy). (cf. Jude 1:7).[4][2][1]
Oppression of the poor.[5][2]
The "injustice to the wage earner": taking advantage of and defrauding workers (cf. James 5:4).[6][2]
Tom Hoopes of Benedictine College explicates the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance with respect to modern political thought:[2]

The first two “sins that cry to heaven” include sins that one brand of politics downplays. First is abortion, which St. John Paul II compared to “the blood of Abel.” Second is the “sin of the Sodomites,” which the New Testament defines this way: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). The second two sins are those that another brand of politics downplays: First, the plight of refugees, immigrants and those who need social assistance and, second, “injustice to the wage earner.” The Catechism cites the New Testament to explain what kind of “wage earner” it means: “Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” (James 5:4).[2]

The seven deadly sins, along with the sin against the Holy Ghost and the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, are considered especially serious in the Western Christian traditions.[7] The sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance are referenced in the Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649, a compendium of Christian doctrine.[8] The concept is particularly important in Catholic moral theology.[9]

Not quite, it's easy to claim superior logic but proving it is another thing. I've stated the same among Catholics who support the candidate mired in moral dilemma in his personal, professional and "leadership" adventures, but they choose to ignore that in their logic.
Explain.

Well, let me throw a can of gasoline and a firebrand into the mix.

If find it .... humorous (I guess that is a good choice of adjectives) that the same people who get their knickers in a knot about the death penalty have no qualms of conscience with the idea of an eternal, burning hell of torment, which is in essence an eternal death penalty. They have no problem with guilty sinners being consigned to unimaginable torments in the next life, yet somehow guilty criminals in this life are to be spared, coddled, and cared for in a manner beyond my financial ability to live rather than punished.

And then, of course, there is the Bible.....which warrants the death penalty for certain sins. Did God make a mistake when he said that? Or was that just man's understanding of how criminals should be treated and when Jesus came, He straightened out the wrong thinking?

It all seems a tad inconsistent to me.

There's not 1 monolith group of people - I don't think the Pope and anti-death penalty atheists have much in common.
The same strawman could be used against those who coddle the wealthy, ignore the crimes against weaker persons, and go after low level offenders with threats of death while allowing mass genocide to occur while they pretend to be blind. Happens all the time, and has in the past.

Did God make a mistake when he allowed Adam to fall? Was the First Covenant a mistake? Did Christ make a mistake saving all humanity?

The overarching mission of a Loving God isn't inconsistent. Anything showing God having "wrath" or changing His mind, striking down man for one act or another, against His own oft-repeated mercy, is clearly some sort of interpretation of events - since God has said time and again He doesn't change. Why would the sin of Sodom, the sin of Jezebel, the sin of even Deicide cause any reaction to swell up in God? Man has no such power over God. God has, however, empowered man to make holy the world around him. Does abortion make the world holy? No. Does the death penalty? No. Does gay union? No. Does divorce? No. That's my take on it. Remove emotionalism from the assessment.

You may think it the end of story, friend, but a Catholic Sharia will never work in our multi-layered society. Even if SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, there are multiple States that have strong "pro-choice" laws, and an overturn would not affect or effect these. Carry the Gospel in your heart, and live it.

Michael Thoma -

My apologies. I guess I'm a bit dense here, but I didn't really understand the thread of logic in your response to me. And unless I missed it, which is all too possible, I didn't see an answer either.

My point was this: the same people who become aghast when I suggest that Christ died for all and therefore all shall eventually be redeemed, meaning that they have no problem with the idea of an eternal hell of justice (how that is justice is beyond me), are the same ones who act as if anyone supporting the death penalty is Satan's twin brother. It seems more likely to me that anyone who can calmly discuss sinners going to an eternal, never-ending, fiery torment without the slightest qualm of conscience is more akin to having a rather evil outlook on people.

In other words - consistency regarding humanity.