In a stirring speech on religious liberty at the U.S. bishops’ plenary assembly last October, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., decried the U.S. government’s propagation of moral relativism — in this instance, regarding criticism of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“The Department of Justice … has attacked DOMA as an act of ‘bias and prejudice,’ akin to racism, thereby implying that the churches which teach that marriage is between a man and a woman are guilty of bigotry.”
The question is simple: Why are Catholics not bigots?
Bishop Lori noted several warring fronts in the recent conflicts between the Church and the state: contraception, abortion, freedom of conscience and same-sex “marriage.”
The battle line has been named religious liberty, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has observed “with growing alarm the erosion of religious liberty in our country.”
In response to the increasing celerity of attrition between the state and the Church, Bishop Lori ended his address by exhorting the faithful to “stand united in calling for the laymen and women of the Church to put their gifts and expertise on the line in defense of religious liberty.”
The defense against religious infringement is simple. The state cannot violate the conscience and moral convictions of Catholicism because it is a breach of the religious freedom of the Church and her Catholics.
Consequently, Catholics should not be forced to participate in abortion, contraception, same-sex “marriage” or any act that infringes upon their consciences. Bishop Lori’s speech on religious liberty contained an eloquent echoing of the U.S. bishops’ new 30-page document on faithful citizenship. Slotted for national distribution by the bishops, the document submits the following summation:
“Civil law should fully recognize and protect the Church’s right, obligation and opportunities to participate in society without being forced to abandon or ignore its central moral convictions.
So, why are Catholics not guilty of bigotry akin to racism?
In the minds of many Americans, the link between the civil-rights movement of the ’60s and the current “LGBT” movement is cogent and undeniable.
In the former, the Church and a myriad of political perspectives marched hand-in-hand for the rights of black people. However, with the so-called LGBT movement — which claims to be the progeny of the civil-rights movement — the Church stands as an impediment.
Subsequently, the Church is charged with a bigotry as malformed as racism. It is in examining the connection between these two movements that the Catholic line of defense seems to incriminate the Church rather than exonerate her.
Bringing to the forefront moral convictions, conscience and religious liberty, Catholics find their weaponry wanting.
A particular weakness is presented in the realization that, unlike most other moral issues, the Church is not content with securing the right to abstain from same-sex “weddings”; she is advocating the practice be illegal within the overall state. Even the U.S. bishops’ vanguard of religious liberty stumbles to find any footing here.
Opponents of the Church contend the bishops’ conference simultaneously props religious liberty up as a shield between it and the state, and then campaigns for the state to denounce same-sex “marriage,” despite the very real moral convictions and religious freedoms of the homosexual community. Here, accusations of bigotry are brought forth, as it appears Catholics believe their moral tradition can trump the rights and moral convictions of other people and groups.
What of conscience? Arguments of conscience bring little to the forefront. Conscience is formed by habit and principle; thus, while the Catholic conscience feels the moral conviction to defend traditional marriage, a growing number of Americans — self-identifying Catholics included — feel the pangs of their unformed consciences to grant homosexual persons complete marital equality.
In response to the charge that Catholics are bigots, many claim the answer is “Yes.” In fact, the difficulty of handling this exact question has stymied the courage of many Catholics because they cannot articulate the faith without appearing “hateful,” while others have simply abjured Church leadership in favor of a seemingly much more coherent and simple standard of equality for all people. Other Catholics — frustrated by the coupling of their concerns and the inability to voice them — demonize homosexuals as persons as a way to justify being against same-sex “marriage.” They speak of homosexuals as furtive fascists seeking to unravel the moral fabric of a Christian America. Fearmongering is no substitute for valid dialogue and only precipitates more accusations of Catholic bigotry.
Americans are witnessing the inception of a rights war. Each faction has hauled in its own set of moral beliefs and traditions to the front. Multiple and contradictory reference points for what is and is not a proper “right” reveal an often unsaid belief: There is no universal reference point — a rights war is a war of competitive human wills.
America has seen and will continue to see a cacophony of autonomous moral positions willing against one another until attrition and public opinion claim a victor.
By entering into a rights war, Catholics have accepted rules of engagement that desiccate their sacred tradition and reduce them to another subset of relative religious opinions.
What the Church and the state need is not another war, but a shared language — a language for Catholics and non-Catholics alike; a universal reference point for rights and laws. What the Church in the United States needs to remember is nature.
Is the Church bigoted? Absolutely not. Holy mother Church speaks to us in charity and truth. The dilemma is how to season our political dialogue with timeless truths, while not being caught up in a “rights war” that distorts the Catholic position.
This is Part 1 of a Register series on Catholic political thought.
H.H. Ambrose is a writer for St. Peter’s List (StPetersList.com) and resides in Pennsylvania.
Matthew Warner: Thank God for the HHS Mandate
Dan Burke: A Novena to the Mother of God for the United States
Comments
Post a Comment
The author has described the Church’s current dilemma with the legalization of same sex marriage very well. I will be interested to see the follow-up article. The problem is, I don’t think there is any way the Church can approach this except as a rights war. The truth is: There IS no universally recognized reference point. Citing “nature” is not going to work.
Humans all over the world are happy to defy “nature,” because defying nature is what gives us control over our lives. It is natural for creatures on earth to live as both prey and predator, and to die early enough and in numbers large enough to maintain a balance among populations. When humans began to make weapons, store food, cultivate crops, domesticate animals and build large communities, they gained unnatural control over the “natural” forces that had previously determined the terms of a species’ survival.
Now it seems natural to us to thwart disease with medication and vaccines, to replace worn out joints, organs and teeth (even in pets!), to send food all over the world to populations in danger of starvation, to divert water to places that couldn’t ordinarily support large populations, to communicate instantaneously on a global scale and to use contraception and IVF to control our fertility. I would argue that there is no “natural” outside the human perspective on what is natural.
Which brings us back to the problem of finding a universally recognized reference point for what is natural. The Church has no advantage in this process, because many groups claiming guidance from a supernatural source disagree with each other on this matter. As the author points out, “Conscience is formed by habit and principle.” So is one’s idea of what is “natural.” It is easy to see this in action when one compares the number of older people who find same sex marriage unnatural to the number of younger people. Younger people have become habituated to the idea that it’s natural for people with same sex attraction to form sexual and domestic partnerships with the same legal rights afforded to opposite sex married couples. It doesn’t bug them when these relationships are labeled “marriages.” After all, they are used to marriages that are terminated at will by the participants and marriages where the couple has no intention of having children. This is also natural to them. So there can be no argument from nature that will trump this experience.
The Catholic Church missed the moment when it could have taken a stand on marriage without appearing to be bigoted against a long-persecuted minority. If the Church had taken a stand against recognizing divorce and remarriage in the context of its universities and hospitals and charities long, long ago, it would have had a leg to stand on. Instead it had no problem providing the same recognition and benefits to divorced and remarried couples as it did to licitly married couples. Catholic adoption services placed children in the homes of divorced and remarried couples but suddenly found their consciences too dreadfully troubled to place them with married couples of the same sex. That smacks more of bigotry than a defense of “natural” marriage.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything Bishop Lori has said. He’s among many Bishops who are to be commended for speaking so boldly on this issue. My question is this: When we lose (which we will), what are they prepared to do about it? Are they willing to “go to the mattresses” over this? Are they willing to defy the federal government? I have my doubts about their courage, though I pray that they do not waver. We shall see.
im ready for war…because im CATHOLIC, and CHRIST is more important to me than any thing thiis world has…
The Clintons started the war on the Church, but nobody paid attention & now Obama, seeing just how weak the “catholics” under the leadership of the late (but not great) “pope” Ted Kennedy, truly are: HE HAS DECLARED WAR AGAINST GOD & HIS CHURCH and as our very Holy & wonderful Pope has said, we MUST fight back. Of course this madman dictator has also declared war against America & all God-fearing, God-loving people. What he fails to realize is that GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED & His Wrath will surely becoming down on all of us. +JMJ+
The truth is, our inherent unalienable Rights that have been endowed to us from God, are grounded in respect for the inherent Dignity of all persons, who regardless of race or ancestry, have been created in The Image of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female. To discriminate between sexual conduct that respects our inherent Dignity as human persons and sexual conduct that is demeaning, is not unjust discrimination.
Every complaint against holy mother Church is because of its unwavering stance against sin in obedience to Jesus. Nothing has changed. From the beginning, let’s recall, man has sinned, continues to sin, insists it is his right to sin. Truth interferes with his one and only defining and euphoric joy, sex. Man insists Jesus’ Church change the definition of sex outside of Sacramental marriage between one man and one woman. It isn’t complicated. Btw, when was the last time you confessed your sins and when was the last time you heard a homily about sins of the flesh?
Obama has spun the table, labeling Christian teaching as “bigotry.” the man is an incredible monster.
Sounds to me like others finally want to say that everyone, not just catholic heterosexuals, have freedom of religion too. I don’t know anyone who would give up their own marriage for a different religion than their own. You are not but you are asking this of others.
We need Newt for President! The media keeps pushing for Romney. He used to be very gun-ho for democrats. The media knows that if they manipulate Americans to push Mitt as the Rep. Candidate, Obama will win again.
Newt is a stronger, more experienced and qualified man to bring back American.
Catholics and the such really need to get out there and support a man like Newt. Buy the bumber stickers! Volunteer for his campaign. Catholics are not outnumbered! Let’s fight for the Lord with Prayer and action!
Here in Ct. Bishop Lori and the other bishops despite the pleading of Ct. Pro Life groups caved in to Pro Abortion alleged Catholic Gov. Malloy. The Ct. Gov. threatened to cut off state funds to catholic hospitals unless they provided Plan B a abortifacient. Sad to say the bishops including Lori and ALL Catholic hospitals caved in to Malloy to dispense Plan B abortifacient from ALL Catholic Hospitals in the state of Ct… The Obama-Sibelius drive is sad to say an attempt to expand this Ct. poilcy to the rest of the nation. When Belmont Abbey college cases goes to Federal court , Obama and Malloy of Ct. undoubtedly point to Bishop Lori and the Catholic bishops-Hospitals in Ct. coerced dispension Of Plan B in Ct.by ALL Catholic Hospitals here in Ct. Years on inaction by the clergy on Contraception ban supported from the parish pulpit and the dispension of Plan B. Abortifacient in Ct. catholic Hospital;s has earned the Catholic bishops the undisquised comtempt by Pro-Homsexual-Abortionist so called Catholic Gov’s.. in New England,New York State, Maryland, Illinois and California. Sadly Obama , Siebelius and Pelosi is moving Gov. Malloy of Ct. agenda to the USA in an election year promotion of the Planned Parenthoos- Homosexual agenda nationwide. In Ct. we avoided narrowly Malloy and his homosexual liberal advisors Lawlor and McDonald’s attempt to subvert the Catholic church in Ct. parish structure through legislation.
Entirely too many Catholics vote for the leaders who most favor these decisions. A majority are Democrats, but there are many Republicans who are soft on these issues when you look at their voting record. Voting for political leaders who are not willing to fight aggressively for the church is an enormous mistake.
Good intentions are not always enough to carry the day. H.H. Ambrose’s article, Recipe for a Rights War, appears - arguably - to be an effort to generally uphold the Church in her position against same-sex marriage. Mr. Ambrose quotes Bishop Lori in the latter’s speech opposing the administration’s abandonment of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), and he cites the USCCB’s warning of the growing erosion of religious liberty in our country. In a short concluding paragraph he expresses disagreement with the idea that Catholics are bigoted in their stand against same-sex marriage. Yet, in spite of the assumption of Ambrose’s good intentions, it must be admitted that the preponderance of his essay gives the illusion of favoring those who argue the opposite. The opinions and innuendos to that effect, although somewhat muted by attribution to others, make the “marriage” of two men, or two women, appear both logical and moral when claimed as a human right. Now it may be the author’s intention to shift the basis of the argument from “rights” to some other more viable platform that would allow the Church greater leverage to advance her own position, but what that platform might be, is never explained. The bulk of the article seems devoted to demonstrating the superiority of the same-sex position to that of the Church. A case is built on several bogus comparisons and accusations: the first is the Church’s insistence on “religious freedom,” while she opposes the grant to homosexuals of a “similar” freedom that would permit same-sex marriage (a faulty comparison based on a non-sequitur); the second, is a claim that same-sex marriage and racial parity issues are cut from the same cloth - as “…in the minds of many Americans the link between the civil rights movement of the 60’s and the current LGBT movement is cogent and undeniable.”* (Actually, when analyzed in detail, such a comparison is almost ludicrous); a third argument is offered in the description of “hateful” Catholics who “demonize homosexuals as persons” - as if such behavior is condoned by the Church, rather than abhorred and condemned. Only in the last brief paragraph cited above does he deny Church bigotry – but he offers no rebuttal to the charges against the Church that he so effectively presented earlier. The point is heavily made that if the same-sex position is to be overturned, it will not be through logical arguments about rights – since the homosexual view clearly prevails. Mr. Ambrose’s only suggestion as to another base on which the Church might make her own case, comes in the form of a simple, naked generalization, i.e., the Church needs to “season her political dialogue with timeless truths…” In spite of this somewhat belated flag-waving, the thrust of the entire piece tends toward accusing and rebuking the Church for alleged intolerance toward the homosexual community. The author has bent so far backward in promoting the claims of his adversary that, regardless of his intentions, he has forfeited the contest.
*Italics added
Good article with specific objectives sharable by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Consider that we already have a universal reference point - albeit not well employed yet - anchored in nature via the gift of reason and located to the LEFT of “...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
.
That often overlooked vital “LEFT” is “We hold these truths to be *self-evident*...”. Indeed, to have “inalienable caliber” for any asserted “right”, it must first pass the test of being self-evident. And, just as critical legislation can require super majorities to be binding, similarly stringent requirements apply to “rights” asserted against long standing instructions received and practiced by peoples down the Ages. Any recognition of newly proposed inalienable rights perceived by many to threaten society requires a super majority of all voters nationally agreeing the proposed right is self-evident. Recognizing “new” inalienable rights requires more care and voter participation than do some other political processes.
.
Achieving a super majority FOR same-sex marriage, FOR gay adoption which gives bad example to the adopted, FOR claiming goodness in homosexual acts toward which nature herself shows serious opposition, FOR rejecting DOMA, etc. – is not possible even in current days of moral relativism.
.
Such ‘super consensus’ does not mean that people are infallible or the source of “rights”; it does mean that THE Source of inalienable rights has designed *right reason* to be able to recognize self-evident rights, the super-majority serving to prevent attempts to “establish” rights by threats, force or cleverness, something more easy to arrange when simple majority applies. The usual charge of Bigotry is dismissed by Nature herself which includes checkable health. There is no need to be drawn into a “Rights War” when the criterion for discrediting such a contrived war exists. Instead, the charge against assertive claimants is of their own making: “they make themselves the source of truth”. No such claim on truth will sell to a super majority. The bar labeled “self-evident” is not a low bar made to serve unhealthy agendas for society. Bigotry doesn’t even have a role.
.
In the initial signing of the Constitution, September 17, 1787 we have a second “little noticed” reference point, NOT to Jesus Christ because the Founders were simply using a common way of dating—“in the year of our Lord”. Though not necessary to do so, the Founders chose to *add* to the dating a reference to the Declaration of Independence. We know that the Founders were understandably fearful, from history, that allowing God’s name anywhere in the Constitution body might one day be abused by, say, a President claiming to act in God’s Name.
.
The Founders also knew that not everything in the DOI of 1776 was applicable in 1787, given the “in between” history of developments. However, one would have to be irrational to assert that the Constitution writers and signers did not continue to value the portions of the DOI with truths important to responsible freedom such as our protections via self-evident-quality truths leading to identifiable rights of inalienable-caliber. Hence we have two universal reference points embedded in Nature and reason via the Declaration and linked by wise Founders directly to the Constitution via the special dating, thus to have legitimate influence on the Constitution’s later interpretation. Recall that the Declaration also speaks of “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. It does not say ‘the Laws of Nature, God’ (a radically different concept!) because the Founders who were part of the Judeo-Christian tradition would not sign up for such.
.
In summary, the Founders’ taking pains to reference the Declaration of Independence means that inalienable rights and self-evident criterion are not to be forgotten by the Courts or sold out by modern elitists. Every concerned citizen should write to Justice Kagan after they view the < 3 minute video below, of Sen. Coburn questioning then nominee Elena Kagan about the Declaration. We need to ponder all the above for it underscores President Obama’s 2009 boast: “elections have consequences!”. Will we give him another chance to nominate more Kagans? Everything said above is free of Bigotry; instead it shows respect for God’s Plan. Hatred of people inclined toward homosexual acts is grievously sinful against both God and such individuals.
.
http://www.aikidopros.com/videos/video/9gCPhlxoLxw/Kagan-Won-t-Answer-Whether-We-Have-Inalienable-Rights-as-the-Declaration-Says.html
.
“Kagan Won’t Answer Whether We Have Inalienable Rights as the Declaration Says Video Clips”
The difference between homosexuals demanding a redefinition of marriage and the HHS mandate is massive. Homosexuals are not being forced against their consciences to do anything, the gov’t isn’t mandating all homosexual men to have relations with a woman once a month (imagine the outcry). This would be like the gov’t mandating all employers to purchase coats for their employees, including furs, and by the way PETA isn’t granted an exemption. Or all employers have to purchase hamburgers for their employees, sorry Hindus. It’s simply outrageous and unthinkable with any other group. BTW, the right of 2 men to marry isn’t in the Constitution, but “the gov’t shall make no law prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion” is. It’s simply apples and oranges.
And for those who use contraception and don’t care, don’t worry the gov’t will be coming for your rights next - it always starts with the unpopular rights going first.
The fundamental problem with the Church in this country is weak leadership - too many wobbly knees. Don’t think the politicians didn’t notice that most Bishops looked the other way with clergy abuse. The Obama administration believes the Church is a paper tiger.
No State or person should condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person because all persons have the inherent, unalienable Right to be treated with Dignity and respect.
William F Folger:
“Any recognition of newly proposed inalienable rights perceived by many to threaten society requires a super majority of all voters nationally agreeing the proposed right is self-evident.”
That’s not how the political system formally works, of course. What seems to happen is that individuals within a culture begin to assert that a law or custom is unjustly discriminatory or invasive of privacy. When they speak up, often becoming targets of persecution and ridicule, others who share their view gain the courage to speak up. The new perspective is explored in academia and popular culture. People who took the restriction or tradition for granted hear the status quo questioned, and some change their minds. The critical mass of converts that results in court rulings that strike down laws or convinces legistures to pass laws guaranteeing a right is not usually anywhere near a super-majority. When women were guaranteed the right to vote, the amendment barely squeaked through the approval process. NOW, after almost a hundred years, it would get the super majority you reference.
You can see the same process at work when new restrictions are put in place, for example with Prohibition and the War on Drugs. I’m not at all sure that a super majority of Americans would have voted in a national referendum that there was no right to produce or procure alcoholic beverages or no right to procure and use drugs recreationally. The super majority certainly rejected Prohibition after they had experienced its effects.
A woman’s right to procure an abortion clearly didn’t have enough popular support to sustain it comfortably when the court recognized this right back in 1973. Because of that it is probably doomed to experience constant legal turmoil in our lifetime.
There is nothing neat about the way our system discovers previously unrecognized rights or takes away a right previously taken for granted.
We firmly believe what the Church teaches us about morality. We should stand united to fight the evil of the ” meaningless pleasure culture”. The eternal values taught by our ancestors, our Church cannot be thrown to the wind as they stand in good stead for the preservation of humans and their civilization.The Catholics should realise that Jesus is their God and leader who said ” Everything will pass away, but not even an iota of the words spoken by him will pass away” Let us stand united in this faith and victory will be ours. Sacrifice is required, carrying of the cross is required to reach our goal, the ultimate resurrection.
cowalker:
“That’s not how the political system formally works, of course.” Your “of course” recognizes I already realize how the system often works and I thank you for that courtesy.
.
“A woman’s *right* to procure an abortion clearly didn’t have enough popular support to sustain it comfortably when the court recognized this *right* back in 1973. Because of that it [the right] is probably *doomed* to experience constant *legal turmoil* in our lifetime.” [emphasis added & one clarifier]
.
The absence of any modifier to the first two occurrences of “right” and to your choices of “doomed” and then “legal turmoil” strongly suggest you are not pro-life or else are acting in your post.
.
Whatever the case, this remains true: as St Thomas Aquinas & others taught, the complexity of society is such that we are not bound to fight every single possible evil in society equally and, sometimes, we need not fight certain ones at all. If you are atheist you will not appreciate what likely happened in the War of Bad Angels with God. Lucifier was very bright but God rightly *kept some information from him* to test His love. God has the right to test free agents for their suitability for eternal life with Him and with others in peaceful heaven. And of course God’s testing is going on right now between you and me and amongst other comment-readers as we post on one another’s entries.
.
You might ask: why wasn’t Adam’s & Eve’s destiny directly hell, as it became such for Lucifer *by his own choice*? My guess is that while Lucifer’s motives were *malicious* (e.g., taking God down in battle), our first parents’ motives were less evil (perhaps ingratitude re the wonderful Garden or envying God’s knowledge). Hence from the beginning, different evils are treated differently.
.
You probably are guessing correctly: I am saying that certain matters on earth are SO important to both God and interactive mankind that it doesn’t impress God at all that man created the political system you describe. Therefore items like procured abortion, unjust war, true racism, “same-sex marriage”, misleading God’s little ones by Gay adoptions, hating gays, will continue to be gravely wrong and to merit resistance. In such tests, society will pass thence to prosper—or fail to pass thence to suffer various amounts of discipline for letting ourselves be talked into following those who propose “big ticket” changes seriously opposed by God.
.
You say: “There is nothing neat about the way our system discovers previously unrecognized rights or takes away a right previously taken for granted.” You are right about “nothing neat” (at times a euphemism for forced change) but that doesn’t matter because this is what God WARNS of down the Ages via psalm (126)127: “Unless God build the house (i.e., we follow His ample guidance in the family & in upward societal structures), the laborers work in vain” (i.e., we FAIL, in the economy, security, confidence, ...). Hence God-respecting people will rightly insist on super-majorities as buffers against “changing” God-given principles and other guidance bearing on peace and unalienable rights.
.
That you may appreciate God’s viewpoint on “big ticket” evils, this is what Pope John Paul II teaches about procured abortion, in the “Gospel of Life”, n9: “Indeed “the blood is the life” (Dt12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, *in some way attacks God himself*.”
.
One day the USCCB may have their priests voice it to the flocks – more than once.
cowalker:
“A woman’s *right* to procure an abortion clearly didn’t have enough popular support to sustain it comfortably when the court *recognized* this right back in 1973. Because of that it is probably *doomed* to experience constant legal turmoil in our lifetime.” [emphasis added] It seems not to be a pro-life comment.
.
Re some cases you cited, St Thomas Aquinas taught that the complexity of human nature and society is such that we are not bound to fight every possible evil with human law yet we are obliged to fight the major ones. Aquinas: “Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?”:
.
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS096.html#FSQ96A2THEP1
.
Indeed there ARE certain matters on earth SO important to both God and interactive mankind as to merit super-majorities to secure them against even later attacks. God is not impressed because some have created the political system you describe, operating on developing a “critical mass of converts”—significantly lower than a super-majority—leading to relatively easy changes by courts and legislatures such as those approving “same-sex marriage” and Gay adoptions. God is the Eternal Tester who informs reason that for continued protection of unalienable rights and certain truths, a bar-level of super-majority may well be required.
.
Under His testing, society will either pass, thence to prosper—OR fail to pass, thence to suffer various amounts of discipline for letting ourselves be talked into following those who propose “big ticket” changes seriously opposed by God.
.
You say: “There is nothing neat about the way our system discovers previously unrecognized rights or takes away a right previously taken for granted.” You are right about “nothing neat” (at times a euphemism for threatening ordinary citizens) but that doesn’t matter because this is what God WARNS of down the Ages via psalm (126)127: “Unless God build the house (i.e., we follow His ample guidance in the family & in upward societal structures), the laborers work in vain” (i.e., we FAIL, in families, in the economy, security, confidence, ...). Hence God-respecting people will rightly insist on super-majorities as buffers against attempts to alter God-given principles and His ample guidance.
.
That you may appreciate God’s viewpoint on “big ticket” evils, this is what Pope John Paul II teaches about procured abortion, in the “Gospel of Life”, n9: “Indeed “the blood is the life” (Dt12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself.”
.
One day the USCCB may have their priests voice it to their congregations and incorporate it into Pro-Life strategy for MANY in the pews need awakened.
Most of our civil Rights stem from our inherent UNalienable Rights which are grounded in the inherent Right of all persons to be treated with Dignity and respect. It defies logic to suggest that a right to privacy would include the inherent right to harm oneself, or someone else, including one’s son or daughter.
“We need Newt for President!”
isn’t he the guy who left two successive wives after they became gravely ill while planning the next?
Now in his third marriage he’s no more catholic than any homosexual getting a marriage.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.