SPF

  • ***
  • 1963 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-Abortion Hilary Clinton Considering Becoming a Methodist Pastor
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2017, 11:16:51 am »
in 2016, the UMC, which has generally only taken steps towards a more liberal stance on all issues, actually took a more conservative step.

For 40 years the United Methodist Church has supported the Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision – that is, until last week.

Delegates of the country’s third-largest religious body voted 445 to 310 to repeal the official resolution supporting the case establishing a constitutional “right” to abortion during its General Conference. They also voted to sever its affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), an interfaith organization co-founded by the United Methodist Church.


Gordon:
Quote
I think the inconsistency appears when you get into the timing. Many people who I know that are pro-choice/pro-women's reproductive rights/pro-abortion ARE ALSO against third trimester or late-term abortions. There seems to be a crucial time period when it is seemingly acceptable to terminate a pregnancy and when it is not.
Well if you watched the debates, you'll recall that Trump really hammered in on Clinton when she said that she would not vote to make even partial-birth abortions illegal.  And no, before you ask I don't recall which debate nor do I have the transcript.
"It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

1

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-Abortion Hilary Clinton Considering Becoming a Methodist Pastor
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2017, 12:19:22 pm »
in 2016, the UMC, which has generally only taken steps towards a more liberal stance on all issues, actually took a more conservative step.

For 40 years the United Methodist Church has supported the Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision – that is, until last week.

Delegates of the country’s third-largest religious body voted 445 to 310 to repeal the official resolution supporting the case establishing a constitutional “right” to abortion during its General Conference. They also voted to sever its affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), an interfaith organization co-founded by the United Methodist Church.


Gordon:
Quote
I think the inconsistency appears when you get into the timing. Many people who I know that are pro-choice/pro-women's reproductive rights/pro-abortion ARE ALSO against third trimester or late-term abortions. There seems to be a crucial time period when it is seemingly acceptable to terminate a pregnancy and when it is not.
Well if you watched the debates, you'll recall that Trump really hammered in on Clinton when she said that she would not vote to make even partial-birth abortions illegal.  And no, before you ask I don't recall which debate nor do I have the transcript.
The issue with bans on late-term abortions is whether there will be an exception for the life and health of the mother. The vast majority of pro-choicers, including Clinton, are in favor of limiting late-term abortions as long as such an exception is included.

2

Bill McEnaney

  • ***
  • 2986 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-Abortion Hilary Clinton Considering Becoming a Methodist Pastor
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2017, 04:03:37 pm »
does it make sense for him to let his politics trump his religion
I'd assume it doesn't trump his religious beliefs, but his religious beliefs do not fully match Church teachings.  According to a Pew Research poll, U. S. Catholics are not universally opposed to abortion.

On the issue of abortion, about half of all U.S. Catholics say it is morally wrong, though that number shoots up to 83 percent among Catholics who attend services regularly. --source

Perhaps you don't consider "cafeteria Catholics" true Catholics, but if you regard the "only true Catholic" to be someone who accepts all Church teaching, you're omitting at least 87% of American Catholics (that's the percent that believe contraception is OK).
Relativist, the problem is that I've heard Biden say that he believes what the Church teaches about abortion.  So he is a hypocrite.

No, I'm not denying that 87% of Catholics are genuine ones.  There are various degrees of excommunication and normally, the one I mean bars someone from Holy Communion but doesn't exclude him from the Church.  A fully excommunicated person is no longer a Catholic, even if he insists that he is still one.  Anyhow I've heard Biden say that he agrees with what the Church teaches about abortion and he should know that the Catholic Church rejects the left-wing distinction between private and public morality.  So he is a hypocrite.

Maybe 87% of Catholics disagree with what the Church teaches about abortion, but the Church is monarchic, not democratic.  That's why the majority doesn't rule in it and why there's authority in the Church.  Catholic agree to obey legitimate authorities in the Church and are obligated morally to obey them when they order them to do what the faithful should do.  A pope, Benedict XVI, I think, commanded priests and bishops to refuse to give Holy Communion to Catholic pro-choice politicians.  But very few obeyed.  Fr. Michael Rodriguez got unjustly punished by his bishop because he, Rodriguez, withheld Communion from a same-sex couple when he knew they were sexually active with each other.  Fr. Rodriguez did the right thing, but his bishop didn't do it.

The Catholic American clergy know that Pope Benedict made that rule because he knew that some pro-choice Catholics might feel tempted to receive Holy Communion when they know that they've been banned from it until they confess to a priest who then absolves them.  Many Catholic clergy worry too much about whether they'll offend other people.  But sometimes offense is unavoidable and I'm sure Our Lord offended many when he accused them of hypocrisy and compared them to whitened sepulchers.  Still, he did the right thing then.

Would you complain about a general in the U.S. Army who disciplined a soldier when he disobeyed a legitimate order when he had no morally sufficient grounds to do that?  I doubt it.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8746

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:54:32 pm by Bill McEnaney »

3

ccmnxc

  • **
  • 868 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-Abortion Hilary Clinton Considering Becoming a Methodist Pastor
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2017, 07:57:07 pm »
This seems odd to me, since all of the evidence indicates that cutting health coverage as much as the Republicans proposed would result in additional and unnecessary deaths, so voting for this proposal would be tantamount to murder. But let's given a GOP legislator the benefit of the doubt -- let's say that he genuinely believes that the all the studies are wrong and that we would all be better off with the cuts Republicans propose.

Well, a few things here, I suppose:
1. Perhaps the most important point here is that, at least as far as Catholic teaching is concerned, even granting for the sake of argument that more would obviously die, and there happen to be no proportionate benefits that go along with cutting health care as the Republicans hope to do, even then what they are doing is not tantamount to murder. It might be a gross abdication of responsibility vis-a-vis their duty to provide for the common good as lawmakers, but to come anywhere in the ballpark of murder on Catholic thought, it has to involve the direct taking of someone's life with some semblance of knowledge and intent. Obviously, voting to cut health care does not meet this standard.
2. To my understanding (which is admittedly pretty minimal), there are benefits to cutting health care at least at the federal level such as subsidiarity, which is highly important in Catholic Social Teaching. What is voted down by Republicans at the federal level might very well be upheld at a state level. Also, a less egalitarian health care system seems to increase quality and decrease the price of care, so these goods are achieved as well. They might not, ultimately, be worth it, but it doesn't strike me as grossly obvious that an egalitarian system outweighs the benefits of a non-egalitarian one, listed and unlisted. Since excommunication tends to require a pretty high bar, where it often is obvious which route to go down from a Catholic standpoint, I can't see an excommunication coming down the pipe here.
3. Finally, to be frank, I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that one side has all the evidence here for two reasons. First of all, considering that science, especially the studies you are gesturing towards, tends to be both fairly politicized as well as subject to a decent bit of tampering (what with statistical modeling and all), it seems one can abstain from putting much authority on these studies. Not to say they are wrong, but since politicians and laypeople like myself are non-experts who are not competent to evaluate the claims of given studies very well, and given at least apparent mitigating factors as listed above with respect to trustworthiness, I'm inclined to think that one can reasonably remain agnostic about the evidence on the issue. This doesn't mean that you have to be agnostic, but as far as the Church is concerned, it seems one can remain in bounds while doing so.
Also, on issues as complicated as healthcare, when is it ever that simple, such that one side effectively has all the cards? At the end of the day, you could be right about all of this, but for your argument to work here, not only must it be right, it must also be darn-near obvious to any semi-dispassionate observer, and I don't think this is the case. Anything less, and bishops are simply not going to be inclined to hand out excommunications.

Quote
But what about this? One of the big reasons I am pro-choice is that I believe that the evidence shows that outlawing abortion doesn't prevent it, it just makes it more dangerous and results in women being maimed and killed along with fetuses being aborted. I believe that the best way to reduce abortions without killing women is to keep abortion legal but to take steps -- more money for adoption services, greater access to contraceptives, etc. -- to make it increasingly rare.

So why would my hypothetical Republican legislator be allowed to remain a Catholic in good standing (since he believes in good faith that his vote would not cause people to die as the evidence suggests), while I would be excommunicated even though I believe that my actions would result in fewer deaths from abortions, which would seem to be what the Catholic Church would ultimately want? (Full disclosure: I am not actually a Catholic in the first place, but you get the issue I am trying to explore.)

The simple answer is that the Republican is not legislating an intrinsic evil in the same way that someone trying to keep abortion legal through legislative means is. Making it so that the government does not provide health care, even if lives are lost, is not an intrinsic evil. It might, if the circumstance allow, be a contingent evil, but the gap between it being an intrinsic evil and a contingent one is where the prudential aspect comes in. Now, while I can see where you are trying to invoke prudential decision in your case, even if the intent is to reduce abortion, the legislation still promotes by letter of the law an intrinsic evil. Now, other things factor in here.
First of all, the Church tends to see the law as a teacher, such that the illegality of abortion will over time encourage the notion that abortion is morally reprehensible. Second, while the Church does not wish for harm of the mother, I also can't see it encouraging safe conditions for what it sees to be murder. Third, making abortion illegal gives legal means to exact justice for the evil of abortion that would not be available if it were legal. Finally, I think you are going to have a really tough selling point in trying to convince people that keeping abortion legal would somehow result in a net decrease of abortions in contrast to making it illegal. This is especially the case with the Catholic Church since one of your proposed methods of lessening abortions, namely contraception, is also explicitly prohibited by the Church as gravely and intrinsically immoral. Since the Church rejects utilitarian/consequentialist ethics, She would never advocate contraception as a means to decrease abortion, even if it were shown beyond all doubt to do so.

One last note, since this is a hypothetical situation, if things really were such that a legislator could make a strong and convincing case to all parties, including his local bishop, that his actions in promoting the legality of abortion were to decrease abortion, and that these actions actually worked, then even if he were ultimately wrong, his bishop might abstain from handing down an excommunication since, as I've said before, the excommunication bar tends to be pretty high in practice. As of yet, however, I don't think any actual politician has come close to making actual this scenario.

Perhaps more could be said, but I've gone on long enough here, I think.
Yoda: Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate...leads to suffering...

St. Paul: ...and suffering produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit

4

Bill McEnaney

  • ***
  • 2986 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-Abortion Hilary Clinton Considering Becoming a Methodist Pastor
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2017, 08:01:29 pm »
Here's why you can't support abortion and be a Catholic.

[ur]http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/17/catholic-bishops-criticize-pro-abortion-politicians-you-are-outside-church-teachings/[/url]