Three cheers for Charles Chaput, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Denver, for this magnificent teaching document setting the Speaker of the House -- a self-described "ardent practicing Catholic" -- straight about what her Church actually teaches and expects its communicants to believe on abortion. Rarely do religious leaders of any church speak so clearly and forcefully about faith and morality in public life. Here's a characteristic passage:
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.
Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do
sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
Magnificent. Of course many Catholic Democrats and Christian Democrats will continue to vote and serve the Democratic Party. Earlier he wrote:
But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a "proportionate" reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life--which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
And further:
Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be "personally opposed" to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse--exactly as it is today. In fact, I can't name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life--not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there's very little action.
"Pious hand-wringing." Exactly so.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Thank you Archbishop Chaput.
For those of you who are infatuated with Absp. Chaput's "knowledge" and "fortrightness," let me give you an example from 2002, in which the good arsebishop criticized Justice Antonin Scalia's thoughtful questions about the Church's revisionism on capital punishment (from Front Page Magazine):
In response to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s thoughtful disagreement with the church’s revisionist stance, published in First Things in 2002, Chaput stated:
"When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not all that different from Frances Kissling disputing what the church teaches about abortion,... the impulse to pick and choose what we're going to accept is exactly the same kind of 'cafeteria Catholicism' in both cases.”
Frances Kissling is a former nun who leads Catholics for a Free Choice, which advocates legalized abortion.
(Cdl. Joseph) Ratzinger exposed Chaput’s irresponsible ignorance less than two years before becoming pope. In July 2004, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following as part of a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C. concerning the American bishops’ stance toward Catholic political candidates:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion….There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about … applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Until the good arsebishop issues a public apology to Justice Scalia, I will not pay attention to anything he says. Scalia is a good and honorable man; Chaput is an ignorant, ambitious charlatan who is bucking for a better see (Los Angeles, maybe?)
If you are confused (and you might be), only the first and last paragraphs of the last post are *not* from Front Page Magazine (damn HTML tags!)
There are many, many Roman Catholics who support Pro-Choice and Gay Rights/Marriage. Especially here in CA.
I am really disappointed to see Church officials try to dictate individual personal values and beliefs, and overstep their boundaries into political territory.
We all have a right to make up our own minds, and I have been Roman Catholic and Pro-Choice for decades. It has never been a problem until recently with the negative politics of the Church.
The RCC cannot tell it's members how to vote, or what to feel politically. That is not their place.
And yes, there is such as thing as being Pro-Choice and practicing Catholic. I have been for many years. I have supported my Church a great deal financially, as well as being involved in various classes and doing volunteer work.
We all have a right to our beliefs and opinions, many at my own church support Gay Marriage and are angry at the Church for trying to force us to be against it.
Catholics do have their own minds, and we don't all have to agree completely with all RCC doctrine.
PS: What some Church officials fail to realize, is that being Pro-Choice does not automatically mean being supportive of abortion. It simply means what it says; Pro-CHOICE. Meaning a woman has the right to choose over her own body/health. That is just common sense. Being Pro-Choice does not mean a person endorses or supports abortion, it simply means we support a woman's right to make her own decisions. I personally am against abortion, but I realize there are times when it is medically necessary (as in therapeutic). I am still Pro-Choice, because logic tells me a woman has the right to choose for herself versus letting the Government do it for her.
People really need to educate themselves on the difference between being Pro-Choice , and being Pro-Abortion. It's a HUGE difference, and Church officials should realize that.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.