It’s never ending. Should Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy be denied the Eucharist for their judicial support for the death penalty and torture?

Yhe death penalty involves taking guilty life. Abortion takes innocent life. Torture is intrinsically wrong but show me where Scalia or Alito favor torture? The torture debate is over exactly what constitutes torture.
The death penalty and torture are done by the state, on behalf of the state. Abortion is permitted so an individual woman may maintain her autonomy without the state, on behalf of the state, interfering with health decisions.
See, there are two ways to spin this. What we know, however, is that for Catholics abortion, the death penalty, unjust war, and torture are intrinsic evils, at least in our modern context. So if a Catholic judge is denied Communion for supporting the legal right to an abortion, so should a Catholic judge be denied Communion for supporting the state’s right to execute its citizens or torture.

It simply is false to say that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil in Catholic teaching. Run down the list of intrinsic evils in Gaudium et Spes or Evangelium Vitae. John Paul II said that it is justifiable to protect the innocent but that virtually always an alternative way of protecting the innocent can be found.
I notice that you modified “war” with “unjust.” Well golly gee, anytime you stick “unjust” onto something, by definition it’s evil. But the devil’s in the details: which wars are just and which are unjust? Which capital punishments are unjust capital punishments and which are just capital punishments? You left out the “unjust” part when it came to c.p.–probably not deliberately, because you don’t grasp the basics of moral reasoning.
Determining which wars are unjust and which are just involves prudential reasoning, including best guesses about probable success of the war effort. It is impossible to reach an absolutely certain judgment about which wars are just and unjust–leaders carrying authority for defending the innocent have to use their best prudential judgment.
None of that applies to abortion. Which abortions are unjust abortions and which abortions are just ones? What criteria analogous to just war prudence do you apply? You cannot apply any because just war criteria begin with the claim that a guilty aggressor threatens the innocent. That is, of course, a prudential, human judgment and must be tested thoroughly and a leader may never go to war if he’s not morally certain of guilt.
Abortion never involves taking a guilty life or any prudential judgment about guilt or innocence or proportionate response to unjust aggression or probability of success in defending the innocent by attacking the aggressor.
You don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Taking innocent life and taking guilty life are not equivalent.

Houghton G: “Taking innocent life and taking guilty life are not equivalent.”
OK…let’s take a look at a couple of situations and see if your black-and-white reasoning applies.
First, the recent matter of the young girl in Brazil. The facts are out there…nine years old, 65+ pounds, pregnant with twins, doctors do not believe she could carry them to viability. The mother approved the abortion in the belief that it would save her daughter’s life. Was this, in your moral system, justifiable?
Second, the matter of Ruben Cantu, a Texas youth who was executed for the murder of a police officer. The link to a relevant story is here, from the Houston Chronicle.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html
A notable quote from the story, from the prosecutor who made the decision to go for the death penalty, is quite interesting:
“Sam Millsap Jr., the former Bexar County district attorney who made the decision to charge Cantu with capital murder, says he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on the testimony of an eyewitness who identified Cantu only after police officers showed him Cantu’s photo three separate times.
“It’s so questionable. There are so many places where it could break down,” said Millsap, now in private practice. “We have a system that permits people to be convicted based on evidence that could be wrong because it’s mistaken or because it’s corrupt.”
So…two cases, one regarding abortion and one regarding the death penalty. You said earlier in response to another poster, “You don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about.”
OK…show us that you do.

Houghton G, another scenario for discussion. Again, I’d appreciate hearing how your black-and-white reasoning applies to this.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0412090169dec09,0,4934450.story
Clearly you are an advocate of the death penalty, so a couple of questions seem appropriate.
1) How many innocent people is the state allowed to execute to insure the guilty ones get what they deserve?
2) Can life be innocent (i.e. undeserving of the death penalty) only in the womb?

I am not an advocate of the death penalty. I simply pointed out the category difference between it and abortion. One deals with guilty life, another with innocent life.
Those who do advocate the death penalty predicate their advocacy on guilt having been proven beyond doubt. If guilt cannot be proven, then the the death penalty is not justified. If people whose guilt has not been proven are executed, it’s called miscarriage of justice and no one I know advocates miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, to equate abortion and death penalty is a category error.
And it’s not black and white reasoning to point this out. It’s simple logic. Your “black and white” stuff is a red herring, used when you want to change the subject.

RJohnson,
The Brazil abortion took an innocent life. Period. It does not violate my claim that abortion deals with innocent life and capital punishment with guilty life.
Was the taking of innocent human life in the Brazil case justified? That’s your question. Are you seriously going to argue that the baby was guilty? Or that it was not human?
So whether one thinks that abortion was justified or not depends not on the status of the baby but on the prudential judgment whether carrying the baby to term threatened the innocent life of the 9-year-old mother. If it did threaten her life, then we are obligated to to our best to save both innocent lives (and punish the guilty man as far as the law permits). Whether the life of the mother and the life of the baby could be saved by skilled medical care, I am not able to say. But that’s the question. You seem to assume that it’s already been answered, “no.” It can’t be answered until all possible medical efforts to save both lives are exhausted. If they are and the baby dies, it’s a tragedy. But both are innocent human lives and both must be defended to the utmost of our medical ability.
Take your “black and white” red herrings and stuff it. I offer reasonable, clear reasoning. You offer foreshortened rush to judgment based on your prejudices. I take medical care as far as it can be taken. You don’t. Whose black and white now?

In the modern context, the Vatican disagrees with you that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and believes that the culture of life encompasses the state executing its citizens.
And there is “unjust war” based on the “just war” theory. Personally, I think “just war” to be a ridiculous concept that was a political compromise without much theological justification, but there is just war and there is unjust war. Invading a sovereign country unprovoked that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is unjust, even to those who believe in the idea of “just war.”

Houghton G: It simply is false to say that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil in Catholic teaching.
Perhaps, but intrinsic evils are not the only evils. E.g. stealing may not be evil in every circumstance (Jean Valjean was justified in stealing the loaf of bread to keep from starving), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t evil in the vast majority of cases. A person who steals, in most cases, shouldn’t present himself for communion. Of course, theft (obviously!) is not usually a public sin.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities that the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (Evangelium Vitae 56). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267 (emphasis added)
So, supporting capital punishment in the modern context, if not an intrinsic evil, is still essentially sinful, no? And politicians and justices who support it do so publicly, no? Thus, they should be denied communion, just as should pro-choice politicians, even if being pro-capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil, no?
Regarding the Brazilian abortion, BTW, have a look here for the remarks of Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life:
The girl “in the first place should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we were all on her side” he wrote in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, March 15. “Before thinking about excommunication, it was necessary and urgent to protect her innocent life and bring her back to a level of humanity of which we men of the church should be expert witnesses and teachers,” he said. “Unfortunately, this is not what happened and it has impacted the credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of many as insensitive, incomprehensible and devoid of mercy,” he said. He said the Catholic principle that upholds the sanctity of life is unshakeable and “abortion has always been condemned by moral law as an intrinsically evil act.” However, because excommunication is incurred automatically at the moment a direct abortion is carried out, “there was no need to declare with such urgency and publicity a fact that occurred automatically,” he said. Archbishop Fisichella said the church can still be firm with its moral principles and at the same time reach out and show mercy toward others. He told the young girl in his written article: “We are on your side. We feel your suffering and we would like to do everything that would help you restore the dignity that you have been deprived of and the love that you will still need. “There are others who deserve excommunication and our forgiveness, not those who have allowed you to live and who will help you regain hope and trust despite the presence of evil and the wickedness of many people,” he said. (emphasis added)

Turmarion,
And your point is??????
Oh, you didn’t have one?
My point was that morally equating abortion with capital punishment is stupid.
Because one involves innocent life and the other does not.
Period.
Get it?

Houghton G.
Pride goeth before the fall and hubris is a sin.

I don’t mean to be a contrarian, Steve, but when you say,
“we may get a wave of discussion about whether the Supreme Court justice should be denied communion”,
this will only happen (here) if you allow it (here). You are, after all, editor-in-chief here. It was you that allowed (encouraged?) the dreadful (and dreadfully un-Constitutional) God-o-meter that not only ignored the ‘there shall be no religious test to hold public office’ dictum, it veritably shat on it and insisted on such a test – of any snd all would-e Presidential canidates.

“[T]he death penalty involves taking guilty life.”
Cleary this is not always the case. How many more examples do you need?

Houghton, I find that you are being intellectually dishonest.
You said: “Was the taking of innocent human life in the Brazil case justified? That’s your question. Are you seriously going to argue that the baby was guilty? Or that it was not human?”
That was not RJohnson’s question and you know it. It was: “nine years old, 65+ pounds, pregnant with twins, doctors do not believe she could carry them to viability. The mother approved the abortion in the belief that it would save her daughter’s life. Was this, in your moral system, justifiable?”
R Johnson did not ask or argue that the fetus (sorry, not yet a baby) was “guilty”. Nor that “it was not human”. RJohnson asked if the decision to abort the fetus, taking into account ALL of the facts surrounding the case, was justifiable?
Since you feel free to twist/change others’ words, don’t be surprised if your own get twisted/changed right back on you.
So maybe now you could answer the question: should 9 year old (raped, I believe) 65lb. girls be forced to carry a fetus to term?
(Oh, and could someone tell us if the “guilty man” actually has been punished?)

“Take your “black and white” red herrings and stuff it. I offer reasonable, clear reasoning. You offer foreshortened rush to judgment based on your prejudices. I take medical care as far as it can be taken.”
And you presume, from over a continent away, that it was not done in the Brazil case? You see, this is the problem I have with absolutists such as yourself. Under your perfect system it would seem that there would have to be a team of doctors reviewing each and every instance where a mother’s life is endangered by a pregnancy. Would the government pay for this review? And how far would that review go before you would be satisfied that medical care had been taken as far as it could be?
Personally I trust the doctor(s) and the pregnant woman to make the right decisions regarding the necessity for abortion when/if the mother’s life is endangered. From your arguments it sounds like you would support government-run healthcare. I’m sure you don’t want the government interfering in your healthcare decisions…why should it interfere in anyone else’s?

(Oh, and could someone tell us if the “guilty man” actually has been punished?)
Well, the Catholic Church down there made quite the deal of excommunicating the mother and doctors, but said very little about the rapist/step-father.
Go figure.

“One deals with guilty life, another with innocent life.”
In the cases I cited, both instances dealt with innocent life being extinguished. As I am sure you read, the Texas execution of Reuben Cantu has been questioned by the very prosecutor who went for the death penalty. He now believes that Cantu may well have been innocent of the charges that he went to the death chamber for.
You stated: “If people whose guilt has not been proven are executed, it’s called miscarriage of justice and no one I know advocates miscarriage of justice.”
I agree with you. That is why I see the pro-life position as being against the death penalty in virtually all cases. As has been shown numerous times, convictions can be obtained on faulty evidence, and appeals often overlook new evidence that would clear the convicted person.
Surely a system that would permit the death of an innocent person in a prison’s gas chamber is every bit as unjust as a system that permits the death of an innocent person in a womb?

“And it’s not black and white reasoning to point this out.”
If you are advocating passing a law regarding something (such as banning abortion) then you are talking a black and white issue. You see, most conservative pro-life advocates do not want any kind of exception included in the law for the life/physical health of the mother. Under their style of a ban, the young girl in Brazil would not have been able to get an abortion (or at least not through her doctor, unless he did abortions clandestinely). The law would be quite black and white…no abortions, no exceptions.
Of course if you bring in the issue of an exception for the life of the mother you immediately lose about 10-15% of your support for the ban (which, if it is an amendment to the constitution, could well kill it). If you add any language about the health of the mother you lose another 15-20%, and even a simple bill would be dead.
Conservatives want laws to be black and white. Strict constructionist approaches favor black and white readings of laws and the Constitution. Life, on the other hand, is often much more nuanced, as events in Brazil show.
Simplistic statements do not cut it.

Houghton, if you read my post carefully, I did not say that abortion is morally analogous to capital punishment or war. Also, if you read the quote from the Catechism, you noticed that it said that capital punishment is unacceptable in modern times with no mention of the issue of guilt.
It’s like this: those on the right want to castigate pro-choice politicians while leaving pro-capital-punishment or pro-unjust-war politicians alone under the rubric of “prudential judgment”. This, however, doesn’t fly. Consider:
Going to a bar and having a couple of beers is obviously not an intrinsic evil. However, if I’m a recovering alcoholic with a history of destructive behavior when drinking, going to a bar and lifting a couple of pints could be very much an evil in that context. Suppose I tell my confessor of my plans to go bar-hopping, and that in my prudential judgment, it won’t be a problem. My priest’s job is to tell me that my prudential judgment in this case is wrong! After all, I am to form my conscience in light of Church teaching, and a decision of this type indicates that my judgment isn’t properly formed. If I go ahead and go bar-hopping anyway and wreak havoc while drunk (fighting, DUI, etc.), it would be ridiculous for me to say, “Hey, you can’t tell me I was wrong to go bar-hopping—I used my prudential judgment!” On the contrary, I should repent and try to undo the damage as best I can.
The point of all this is that while going bar-hopping is not an intrinsic evil, in this context for me, it is an evil, and it is the job of my confessor to tell me this in no uncertain terms, and to call me to accountability if I do it anyway.
OK—the Catechism says “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent “. I take this to mean that, though capital punishment may not be an intrinsic evil, the church is teaching with a high level of authority that in the modern context of an industrial nation, it is an evil, and for all practical purposes this is now always the case. Therefore, any prudential judgment which says otherwise, like that of the alcoholic bar-hopper, is objectively mistaken–perhaps well-meaning, but wrong for all that. Is it not, then, the duty of the bishops to call to account politicians who support or even promote the death penalty? After all, the difference between these cases is that politicians act publicly. My confessor may not take me to task in public in the alcoholic example; but a politician who acts in public for public goals, can and should be publicly rebuked if he or she supports something the Church clearly teaches to be evil, whether intrinsically or in the current context. Could this not rise to the level, for a Catholic politician, of denial of Communion? After all, I think the actions of the alcoholic in the above example are clearly on the level of unworthiness for Communion without Confession. The difference is that a priest may not deny communion to an individual unless that individual is a “notorious public sinner” and “scandal may result”. For a politician to support evil, even a non-intrinsic evil if the Church teaches clearly against it, is “notorious”, “public”, and “scandalous”, no?
Likewise with the Iraq War. Just war theory is tricky, but it has never been held that a pre-emptive war could in any way be considered just. Moreover, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have clearly proclaimed the unjustness of the war. Does this not, in this case, clearly indicate that Bush’s prudential judgment was obviously wrong?
My point is that people across the ideological spectrum tend to abuse “prudential judgment” as a magic “get-out-of-jail-free card” to argue, in effect, that Church teaching doesn’t apply to what they support. Pro-choice politicians use this to say that it’s OK for them to pass laws in favor of abortion; and conservative Catholics use it as an argument that capital punishment and pre-emptive (or better, “offensive”) wars are not grievously wrong and sinful, or even that it’s just the Pope’s “opinion” that they’re wrong, so that they can be supported in good conscience. Thus each reads the riot act to the other side while being self-righteous about their own.
Now, there is an argument to be made for “engagement”, as made by those who think Obama’s ND speech is dandy. That’s neither her nor there. It is the inconsistency (to use a nice word) or hypocrisy (to use a nasty word). If we want to say a Catholic university should not invite an avid proponent of abortion, well and good—but why was it OK that it invited George W. Bush, as avid a proponent of the death penalty as Obama ever was of abortion, and who even mocked Karla Faye Tucker (at least to my knowledge Obama hasn’t mocked the pro-life side)? Or, if Bush was OK, why not Obama? That abortion is an intrinsic evil and the death penalty is not is totally irrelevant, as I think I’ve shown.
If the bishops don’t get their act together and act with consistency and good catechesis, they have no reason, they have no right to be taken seriously by anyone, Catholic or otherwise. They will be seen, and rightly so, as the “prayer wing” of the GOP, rather than prophetic voices boldly proclaiming moral truth.

The state may carry out the death sentence, but it cannot hand it down. Only a jury may hand down a death sentence. The state can only carry it out or commute it.
Studies have shown that, for each death sentence carried out, three to five lives are saved by the deterrent value of that example.

“Communion” should be capitalized.
God Bless!

I will never understand why advocates for abortion are sooo cowardly.
Why do they make up misleading labels in regards to whom they are?
Pro-choice? You are either pro-abortion, or not. Let’s start calling it what it is. Whichever one you label yourself as, that’s fine. However, please do not begin the debate by trying to mislead who you are or what you stand for. Oh and by the way,… same goes for you pro-life’rs.

The (continuing) knocking of the Catholic Church is really nausiating. To say that the Catholic Church doesn’t say anything about the death penalty or the Iraq war is a total lie.
To call abortion intrinsic is totally justified.
Simple maths will quickly say that deaths (yes human deaths) caused by abortions far exceeds those caused by the death penalty and Iraq wars put together – not that those were right. And to say it’s not a baby or what Obama calls it, a “potential life” is nothing short of dispicable.
Pete

If Sonia Sotomayor is Catholic, I’m sure she’s so against Church teaching as to technically be a protestant.
But expect any opposition to her to be labeled “bigotry,” as Bill O’Reilly points out in his recent column.
O’Reilly Exposes Bigot Campaign
http://tiny.cc/Cezv9

“Studies have shown the death penalty has a deterrent value of 3-5 lives”? What study is THAT? And when did studies claim to start using clairvoyance?
Can you see how laughable that statement is? “These people would have died? How do we know?….uh..we looked into the future and saw that they were dead?”
There are just as many or more studies showing that the death penalty has no deterrent value at all, and in fact, innocent people have likely been killed by this form of ‘justice’.
I’ll make my own study, which is just as valid as any guesswork and made-up number that claims to predict the future…the death penalty has blackened the hands of hundreds, validated vengeance-fueled murder, and killed at least as many innocents as it claims to have saved, throughout history.

I just need to respond to DJ. I’m not an advocate for abortion, I’m not pro-choice, nor am I definitively pro-life. I still take issue with your statement because I know many people who are “pro-choice” meaning the government should let women do as they want with their bodies, but who are certainly not pro-abortion. Pro-choice does not mean you want anyone to chose abortion, necessarily. It means you allow it as an option. You seem to have trouble grasping the nuance of the “pro-choice” position. Oh, and yeah, there may be some pro-abortion people out there who like it for population control. Those people are very different from pro-choice though.

Nobody is PRO ABORTION, that’s just the right wing trying to paint anybody who thinksa woman should be allowed to make an informed choice on her own reproductive right as murderers. Nobody wants to have an abortion! If you want to get rid of abortion, make birth control cheap and available. And if you are so concerned with the lives if unwanted children, quit walking around in circles outside planned parenthood and take in a foster child, become a big brother/sister. It’s not about the babies, it’s about your need to feel morally superior. Quit being judgmental bastards and open your mind and your ears for a chnage. A woman is not the property of the givernment, her uterus should not be regulated!!

D.J. Being pro-choice does NOT mean you are pro-abortion (or anti-life). You can be against abortion yet have NO interest in making it illegal and putting people in jail because of it, or creating a back-door abortion environment leaving women butchered because they were desperate. Most sensible pro-choice people are advocating for things like strong education and contraceptives as a means to decrease and eliminate the need for abortion. They just have no interest in solving the problem through courtrooms and jailhouses.

we need to keep religon & state SEPARATE-HELLO!! i hope she is for womens right 3 choose& gay marriage!!!! these are HUMAN RIGHTS-NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS!!

“There already are five Catholics on the court but they’re all conservative so they haven’t been attacked for being bad Catholics (i.e. being pro-choice despite the church’s teaching).”
This is not quite true. Justice Kennedy is “Catholic,” but pro-abortion.
“Nobody is PRO ABORTION”
I disagree. For too many, abortion is a sign and symbol of “women’s liberation,” sexual “freedom,” and even an important aid to environmental health. It’s something of an anti-sacrament. Not only that, but Planned Parenthood’s own statistics prove that the vast majority of abortions are done for “cosmetic” reasons: the woman just doesn’t want the kid. If we limited legal abortions to rape-n-incest, we’d do away with the vast majority of them.
Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is plainly unconstitutional, whatever one feels morally about the practice of abortion. In order for Roe v Wade to be upheld, one has to apply a postmodern eisegetic hermeneutic whereby words only mean what the reader thinks they do. If President Obama was truly a centrist, he would appoint a conservative justice to the SCOTUS, who would take the constitution at its word, overturn Roe v Wade, and once again make abortion rights what they were from 1787 to 1973: a state’s issue.
Mississippi would then have the practice outlawed, and you could get drive-thru abortions in California. A centrist compromise if there ever was one.

By the way.
Pro-choice Catholics are not bad Catholics because they are not Catholic at all – they have excommunicated themselves.
They can go through the motions and pretend to be Catholic but by their accepting and supporting the mass murder of children they have condemed themselves for all eternity to what they “choose” for children in the womb.

Obama is pro-abortion. His first move in office was to subsidize abortion overseas with U.S. taxpayer funds. (In government, you subsidize that which you want more of, and you punish with heavy taxation that which you want less of.)
In addition, he is openly committed to some form of the Freedom of Choice Act, which will strike down *all* common sense legal restrictions on abortion that the States have enacted by the democratic process. Any Democrat Catholic should be appalled and ashamed of such a ghastly pogrom against babies everywhere. Blood is on the hands of people who support such evil policies.
And finally, capital punishment is *not* evil according to Catholic teaching. To the contrary, capital punishment is TOO JUST and lacks the important balancing quality of mercy. Therefore, capital punishment ought to be used only in matters of self defense when incarceration is not an option. But again, the dilemma with capital punishment is that it is too strictly just, and that’s why Catholic teaching seeks lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty for murderers.

I don’t think her position on abortion is known at this time. Since it will come before SCOTUS, she may not want to reveal that in the confirmation hearings. As a Catholic, I am embarrassed by those who advocate the excommunication ot pro-choice Catholic public officials.
The Holy Father honored pro-choice President Sarkozy by making him a Canon of Saint John Lateran (Rome’s cathedral) earlier this year.

First of all, mommy tried to make me believe your non-sense, didn’t work! That said, I find it fascinating that a group who once thought it fashionable to roast witches and other “heretics” over an open flame thinks that their beliefs should receive one ounce of consideration. Let’s face it, the Catholic Church’s policy of no birth control has damaged our entire species’ future and caused massive levels of suffering throughout their shameful history. Of course, things would have turned out much worse (to this point) if the Church’s policy of treating science itself as a heretic had been successful. Technology has almost certainly kept all of humanity from having to face major food shortages. Your religion has been constructed with blood and unjustified torture. Whether Abortion legal yes or abortion legal no, laws should be made based on reality, not on the rantings of a simple minded philosophy that has led to fun little ideas like the Spanish Inquisition and the ever popular Crusades. Here’s an idea, why don’t you guys focus on keeping your priest’s fingers (and whatever else) out of the children that already exist. That might keep all of your blessed churches from being sold off to the highest bidder after the lawsuit settlements! Good luck with that. RP

To be a true Catholic you would be pro choice FOR LIFE not just pro choice for embryos. The fact is that once these sacred embryos come to term and become children the same people who fought so hard for the embryo’s survival will now vote down any and all programs that would give this child a chance to survive. So the question must be anti- abortion FOR LIFE. Abortion can and does occure everyday with our blessing as we choose to abort the programs, daycare ,food stamps,medical care, and housing!! Get real and be honest, you can not force that an embryo be brought into our world only to be aborted consistantly through out their lives and then pay to keep them in the many prisons they fill.

Wake up people, Pro choice meant Pro abortion!!! When’s the last time Planned Parenthood counseled on the benifits of Adoption? Never. Lets re-cap. Far left liberal President, liberal Congress, Liberal Senate, now liberal Supreme Court? Our Constatution is a worthless piece of paper without an underlying faith in God (whether it be Catholic or Prodestant). Our forefathers understood that most of our countrymen (currently around 80%) consider themselves Christian. How can a Christian honestly look at the teachings of Christ and believe that Abortion is not a MORTAL SIN? Abortion (especially partial birth abortion) is murder. You can not claim Catholisism and also claim “Pro-Choice” It violates a fundamental belief of the religion. God’s Commandments tell us that Murder is wrong. Moral realtivism will only pave this countries path to HELL!

Rick needs lots of prayer.

Rick, you’re wrong on all counts. Having babies isn’t the cause of suffering, tyrannical political systems are the cause of suffering. Next, very few priests (less than 1%) are pedophiles–so your kids are far safer with priests than with public school teachers or even Oprah’s school teachers. Finally, you’re for abortion, so you defend the right to slaughter a million humans every year in the U.S. So that begs the question: what are you doing moralizing?
To Benedict, it is right to deny communion to anyone who commits mortal sin. And, passing pro-abort legislation is to be complicit in abortions. Thus, in those cases, politicians are expected to NOT take communion, and if they do anyway, the bishops must eventually step in enforce the issue. It’s entirely reasonable to expect Catholics to follow Church teaching. Yes?
In short, babies are good, and we must love and protect their right to exist and not be killed, which is the same right you have to exist and not be killed. You all do believe you have that right, don’t you?

As a nation we have been forgetting the sanctity of life. We have almost forgotten the fifth commandment, ” Thou shalt not kill”. We have been entertaining a culture of death, but not only death itself, but also desecration of qualities for bringing out the wholeness of exalted life in the individual. These qualities include, adequate healthcare, job with adequate pay, living conditions, human rights, a fair justice system, freedom and peace, a right for pursuit of hapiness, and a right to be free from opression. These are all qualities which condone life of the higher degrees.
H. Michael O.

Abortion is the termination of a human life, no matter how you see it. Conception is the beginning of our journey as a human. The authority of terminating a life should be reserved only to the one that created it. When an abortion is made, four persons are involved in that act: the mother that took the decision, the surgeon that performed it, the politician who created or supports the law that allowed that woman to have the abortion and the voter who knowing the politician stand in abortion, voted for him/her.
Everything we know was created by someone way too powerfull for us to understand It. I don’t think killing a baby pleases him who sent us here. When choosing a politician, God comes first; then I consider the rest of the issues this person is bringing to the table.

Nobody has the right to judge whether another person is a good or bad Catholic, and that’s a useless thing to do anyways. What really matters is whether this judge says she believes in Christ and follows his message. Only God, in the end, can decide whether she did or not.
And yes it IS wrong to withhold communion from what you call a bad Catholic, a pro-choice one. Did Jesus withhold himself from the prostitutes, tax-collectors, or thieves? No! Jesus preferred to be comfort and convert the prostitutes, to welcome the tax-collectors, and invite the thief, while dying on the cross, into his heavenly kingdom. If you want to talk about being a “good Catholic,” you should encourage those pro-choice people who do not follow Church teaching to more fully receive the Body and Blood of Christ in order to bring about a conversion of heart. Am I wrong? We can’t defend the unborn lives, without first defending the born lives. Let’s keep our priorities straight. Abortion is wrong, but alienating people already born is even more of a sin. Let’s fight to support already born human beings, and then defend the right to life of the unborn. Both are important to fully living out the Gospel message.
truth and love – matthew

All I can say is, thank (most of) you for explaining and stressing why abortion is so morally wrong, a mortal sin, and the logistics as to why it is wrong to think that anyone can be in the right mind to think that a) abortion is not murder, b) that one can be a Catholic truly, and proclaim pro-choice, and to explain c) that children are not the cause of suffering. They are the fruits of other’s choices, whether those choices were thought out or not. They deserve life from the earliest stage, just as we all do. I am a devout Catholic and have just been so very heavy hearted seeing over and over, every effort made to end abortion and protect life, being turned over since Obama’s stepping into presidency. It especially sucks when he chooses people who are “Catholic” GRR, and then they are absolutely insane and say things like, “if we had more abortions, our economy and nation would be better” ~Nancy Pelosi. Not that I’m surprised, coming from a man adamantly ensuring that failed birth abortion babies are not given a chance to live, but left to die, but ya know.
SO, thank you for stating w/ so much respect, what you did. It brings me hope.
Peace In Christ,
Niki

Turmarion’s extensive commentary, though well thought, fails to establish abortion as a morally-equivelant evil with that of capital punishment or the just-war theory. His analogy of the alcoholic is comparing apples and oranges because when an alcoholic enters a bar, even though he has the intent of drinking to excess, no one can say with certainty what he’ll do once he gets there. He may have a revelation or he may encounter a friend who dissuades him from drinking. There are circumstances which may prevent him from doing himself -or others- harm. Abortion, on the other hand, can never have a neutral or positive result. It is always patently and morally wrong and unjustifiable. Without being too critical, it seems there are a number of well-educated (perhaps too much so) Christians who think they can reason away what their Church ( which has the pillar of authority and truth) has established. They disagree with that authority in favor of what they have been taught at university: that the objective individual mind (read: conscience) takes precedence over what someone else teaches. Some of this is taught at (allegedly) Catholic universities. When conscience collides with the Truth (i.e. the Catholic Catechism), I’ll side with the Truth.

An acorn is not an oak. An egg, even a fertilized egg, is not a chicken. And a fetus is not a human being.

Meecham – You are a member of an organization who has been directly responsible for some of the most vicious (already born) human slaughters in history. The Catholic Church and its vicious ways WAS the tyrannical political system that you speak of in your response. So that begs the question: what are YOU doing moralizing? You should read more carefully, I didn’t even suggest that I supported abortion. Of course anyone who thinks that overpopulation isn’t becoming a real threat to our kind has no understanding of elementary economics. However, abortion is NOT the answer to that problem. As for those frisky priests, I certainly agree that the vast majority are not molestors. However, the church bent over backwards trying to protect those who were… and they used your money to do so. So again, that begs the question: what are YOU doing moralizing? – RP

Being a Catholic is a verb.It is something you do and who you are…If your pro choice than your no Catholic….I am sick of people saying they are Catholic or another religion just to get the votes…There is no gray area..Either you are or you are not…God does not accept murder just because it is convenient or the supreme court says it is ok..There is only one supreme court and that’s Gods…

Marian – If a fetus is not a human being, why do women get so upset and heartbroken if they miscarry? Those emotions are God’s way to show you that all life is important. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to be aborted? Good luck in the afterlife. You will be asked about this when you try to ascend into heaven.

Mathew-
Your quest for trying to figure out what Jesus would do is commendable, however, the Biblical scenarios you mention i.e. prostitutes, thieves, and tax collectors were taught by Christ to “Go and sin no more.” The Eucharist was not instituted till the last supper and therefore a personal relationship is what Jesus offered to these sinners, and a chance to be holy through conversion. Every one of these “Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians” are welcome to speak to a priest acting in Persona Christi (The person of Christ) in confession, change their ways, then “Go and support abortion no more.” I assure you they could then receive the body and blood daily, if they wished. However, it takes a certain kind of moral arrogance, something that Washington politics is not short on, to think that you know more about morality then Mother Theresa, John Paul II, Benedict, St. Padre Pio, and 2000 years of Church teaching.
Check out your statement: “Nobody has the right to judge whether another person is a good or bad Catholic” Now check out this one you wrote: “Abortion is wrong, but alienating people already born is even more of a sin.”
Right there – you made a judgment on the severity of different sins. You judged that abortion (the killing of innocent human life) was an inferior sin to politically “alienating” people. That killing was LESS of a sin then offending someone? You have got to see that Jesus does not agree with you…. Please read Mathew 10:34-38. Taking Jesus’ side on certain unpopular issues, and challenging our leaders to do the right thing, WILL divide people. Christ knew this.
Now please take note that Christ himself was an unborn child Luke 1:44-47. Would it of been less of a sin to kill him then to offend people? I mean King Herod was pretty “alienated” at the prospect of JC coming into this world. An abortion would have cleared up all that inconvenience real quick.
The Church has stated that abortion is a grave mortal sin. You cannot receive the body of Christ if you are in mortal sin 1Corinthians 11:27. If we said it was “ok” for them to receive, we would be doing them a disservice. We would be leading them to think that what is wrong, is right. Which is actually a very evil thing to do to someone. You would be leading them to sin.
Just take a second and pray. Ask God what HE thinks of abortion. I think it will become very clear the road we are called to take.
God Bless,
George
http://www.generationlife.org
thenewsexualrevolution.blogspot.com

Marian–
You say that a fetus is not a human being. Here is the definition of a fetus from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” You see, a fetus is a human being, it is a developing human. Ask any woman who is pregnant whether she is pregnant with a human being or not and she will wonder about your sanity. There is no question as to whether a fetus is human or not and whether it is alive or not, unless you have a political agenda to deny the child’s existence.

Let me start by saying I’m a practicing Catholic and am pro-life and have been my entire life. Catholics believe in all life. It does not just center on the abortion issue. Unfortunately, this debate always seems to come down to abortion. Catholics are against abortion, the death penalty, war, and are for supporting life from cradle to grave. This means helping the poor and less fortunate.
So – whether you are conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, there are issues in both parties that conflict with the Catholic Church teaching.
I’m tired of hearing the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” debate as defining whether one is Catholic or not. All of these issues need to be examined (abortion, death penalty, war, poverty, etc) and put into context.

I am sick of hearing people calling themselves Catholic and go against what the so called church teaches! Pro-Choice! That is the problem they are going by what a POPE (Sinner just like everyone else) tells them to do! He can’t forgive them their sins only JESUS! The only one that Judges is JESUS! Like Michelle said there are no gray areas. You are either for ABORTION or against it. The sad thing is that everyone is going to be accountable on judgement day!
Another thing, all the pro-life people are going against what they themselves are fighting for. Why don’t they let the pharmacyst choose weather they sell the plan B pill? Why can’t they have a choice just because they have a God fearing conscience? Hello! they want to be pro-choice. Don’t be pro-choice and stop other’s from choosing what is right! PRO-LIFE!

I am pro-life when it comes to myself and fellow Christians..but when it comes to the Jewish faith, in particular, I would be stretched to tell a Jewish woman, especially if the pregancy is genetically their own, you should carry that pregnancy..particularly because their belief system is quite different from a Catholic or a Christian…quite sure you would be met with a fair degree of hostility, etc…and Jews are the most pro-abortion group in the population.

Thou Shalt Not Murder, God makes babies while they are in the womb. God says where the choice for life comes about always choose life. Blessed is the man with a quiver full (babies not abortions). As for Jesus, he would place a millstone around the neck of anybody harming his little ones. As for judging, you are wrong again. Judgements are made every day and it is very important to know what is right and what is wrong. Our country is making the same mistakes that destroyed Judah during Jeremiah’s life and cost the lives of thousands of people who didn’t listen to Jeremiah. We must be careful to judge rightly and we can only do that by reading all the Old Testament and all the New Testament. Look at kids today. Never in our nations history have they been so evil. Drugs, premarital sex, disease from premarital disease and from men and women getting aids while in prison and bringing it home to their wives or husbands as be the case. God condemns homosexuality in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. If we don’t stop abortion this nation will continue to die. Only a fool would desire to sin. Babies are supposed to grow up and become tax payers and birth more babies but we are at a zero population growth. Jobs in our nation go to illegal aliens and we do nothing to enforce our own laws.

God condemns abortion and whether you agree or not the damage of abortion has brought this nation to its knees. Babies are supposed to grow up and become honest tax paying citizens but are you surprised they are killing their babies by the millions every year.
Both God and Jesus condemn abortion. It is called murder in the old testament. As for judging, you must make judgements every day. They have to be fair judgements and based on the word of God. Our country has murdered more babies than Hitler murdered Jews. I guess we must apologize to Hitler. Judging is as much a part of life as is making any decision. You have judged Christians for protecting life while you stand behind bad laws that give billions of dollars to abortion clinics. I know where I will spend eternity and I pray you change your evil ways before you time to meet your Creator comes. I would that nobody would go to Hell.

From what facts we have available, she opposed Obama’s pro-abortion repeal of the Mexico City Policy. In other words, she did not like Obama’s move to send our tax money overseas. Not promising that she is pro-life (fingers crossed that she is) but her small record shows that she does. Also, being a good or bad Catholic does not revolve around this issue–it certainly is important, but you can be a bad Catholic by supporting gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research, too.

Rick, your facts are just plain wrong. The Catholic Church built all the great institutions of Western Civilization, from science to the university system and hospitals. So, that’s just the historical reality.
To Jody, you can’t hold the position you said Catholics can hold, because abortion is murder. All good people (including Catholics) are obligated to put in jail those who murder human beings. And, if you’re a democrat, you’re entirely comfortable with solving countless problems–from smoking and trans-fat to carbon emissions–with courtrooms, jails, and back-breaking fines. So, to suggest that Democrats are not comfortable with such methods is to mislead readers, I think.

Abortion HURTS, is not only terminating the life of your baby, it will hurt you forever. It will affect your everyday life, it will drive you to self-destruction and without help it will take a long time to figure out that the consecuences are worst that the act itself. I Know, nobody told me I experience this myself…
I wish somebody would told me. I kept silent for 24 years, Nobody told me that it was a child not a choice.
“My people perish for lack of knowledge” so now you know!!!
ABORTION HURT WOMEN and everybody around them.

DONT ASSUME that most Puerto Ricans are of Catholic belief. There are plenty of other religions that we believe in. Not all you should really check before writting a artical like this. Dont judge before knowning…DONT ASSUME

How does anyone on this blog know what God or Jesus thinks?
I don’t know what my wife thinks and we’ve been married for 40 years.
I actually know the answer to this question. It’s simple.
All one has to do is say what he thinks, such as “I think abortion is murder” then substitute “I think” for “God says” or “Jesus says” and there you have it. Easy as pie, and anyone can do it.
Try it. It never fails to work.

I don’t understand Waldman’s point. If pro-choice Catholics aren’t good Catholics by definition because the Catholic Church defines abortion as murder.
So yes, you should get ready for it because it’s true.

Men should be blamed for abortion. They are the impregnators, not women.gp

@Michael
May 1, 2009 at 4:49 pm

“It’s never ending. Should Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy be denied the Eucharist for their judicial support for the death penalty and torture?”

The death penalty is NOT against Catholic doctrine; abortion very clearly IS. Read the Catechism. Specifically beginning at Article 5 and The Fifth Commandment.