- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,336
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
I hate to throw a monkey in your wench here Davey but....
What about he moral considerations of representing, in good faith, the consitutancy that elected you to reprent them and the oath you took to do just that as a legislatior ?
Most people in America do not share the views of the people on this board.
If you have a consitutancy that pretty much would like abortion restricted in the third trimester but wants limited available in the second and unlimited available in the first (which is about the view of American's generally) how can you vote on a bill that says that and not get caught in the swtiches.
Further, why, if you actually think this way, should a legislators ethics always fall to the side of his personal conscience ? They are, after all, elected to do our collective bidding, to some extent at least we have a claim on how he should vote and want we want him to do.
To what extent do his oath of office and his the Chruch stands of various issue come into conflict and if the Chuch is unwilling to let a legislator up on issue like this and are willing to threaten him on such a deeply personal level as this to get their way why should ANYONE every vote for a Catholic for public office ?
I understand that a representative is elected to do what his/her constituency wants. I think a politician needs to be upfront on what they believe in an election so people know. But if something is intrinsically evil, it is. And it does not matter if people support it. There have been plenty of times in democracy when the majority supported an intrinsic evil and it took politicians to vote against those who elected them. Their choices need to be a balance between personal conscience and will of the people. But no one should ever be made to support an intrinsic evil at the will of a majority. In that choice the conscience, given by God and hopefully properly formed to follow His will, is the final call.
As far as the Church threating, that's not the case. They are simply letting people know how it is. If someone is protecting abortion as a right of choice for convenience or birth control...then it's a sin. And if, after the priest and the person involved discuss it and all relevant factors known to them alone, the person obstinately remains in sin...there are few options. It is not something that can be changed, it is connected to the nature of the Eucharist at the foundation of our Sacramental theology.
I do get how that can complicate voting for a Catholic for some people. A lot of things complicate situations when people are deciding between right and wrong. Not that voting for a Catholic is always right...depends on the person; but I mean yeah, it complicates a transitory part of fallen world. The issue, personally, is not one I will compromise on with my vote because it is bigger to me than the vote.
I don't want to sound impractical or dogmatic, you know I try to take all sides into account. But to be frank Charlie, if someone wants abortion restricted in the third trimester but wants limited available in the second and unlimited available in the first available then they are wrong. And that that is the view of Americans in general is both debatable and I don't think it would be a very popular view if the social factors were mitigated. But I do get your point that it is a common mainstream view. But I think that is because people can come up with justifications for abortions based on social factors that can, and should, be removed by application of the rest of our teaching on social justice.
All of this is the same as supporting unjust wars or state sanctioned murder of any kind. Yes, in abortion we have the foundation right with a moral weight that is greater than many others. But I would say the same for unjust wars, state sanctioned murder, oppression and all of the things I hold as human rights.
But yes, the issues you raise are valid and are of great concern to many. And they are good points. I'm just likely going to disagree with you on the application of our individual logics in this regard. But I see how someone reading all of this would think: "I can't vote for a Catholic if that is the deal." But, that's the deal.
I also hope that if a politician agreed with what I expressed here there would be points for an internal consistency on the ethic of life. And I think that for a great many the type of person who would support it all in that way would gain some support even if the voter knew they would not always represent their constituency. Because they would trust the judgment skills and the ethic.
But likely such a person would not have made it very far in politics. And probably, in many cases, due to the issues you raised
Last edited:
Upvote
0