Most pro-life volunteers, including Latinos and Catholic bishops do not understand that letting states handle abortion laws also overturns federal protected class for them. Hernandez v Texas would fall as well as protection for the Church against states that still believe the Pope is the Antichrist.
Only Congress can change the status of the unborn in early pregnancy, which would void the Rhode Island law. Federal power on abortion works both ways. Federal status means that anyone who has must get protection as a person and states would have to investigate all of their deaths and try mothers. They cannot selectively investigate abortion and not miscarriage (5th Amendment due process of law). Privacy rights (9th Amendment) prevent investigating either. Due process means they must investigate all.
Another commentator asked if pro-choice Catholics were Catholic at all and not CINOs
There is no pro-life voting for legislators. The last 4 GOP justices vote pro-choice. While Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky was denied Certiorari under Rule 10 (no conflicting Circuits), Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavenaugh could have insisted in hearing it to re-examine Roe. No bishop could make them by denying Communion. First, it would be sedition because they were appointed by a foreign government and second, they would have to recuse themselves on either side. No case could be heard and none if the three would repeal anyway. There is no such thing as overturning Roe without repealing the Constitution.
Catholics must not procure a particular abortion or advocate it as a positive good for students, Down's parents or zero population growth for environmental reasons (resource scarcity, climate).Eugenics either. Or NFP, strictly speaking. The right to childbirth must be guaranteed by subsidies if necessary. (Casti Connubii, #119-122) of the Magisterium of Pius XI.
Opposing such support or being a Catholic business owner and not providing an adequate income, if not an identical living standard for the children of your workers is more pro-abortion than arguing against the rights of all women to have no investigation when their pregnancies end (unless someone else caused miscarriage).
Not forcing society to adopt Catholicism, as opposed to economic justice, was promulgated by Paul VI and Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae, although the Council Fathers likely did not consider abortion rights part of it. Freedom is messy that way.
The question of contraception in the global South was raised.
Abortion has existed since the first time a midwife had to deal with a miscarriage. Indeed, the Book of Numbers specifies a test that would result in abortion If the wife was thought to be pregnant by another, at which time stones would be used to reunite mother and child. That was what the Gospels meant by Joseph did not want to subject Mary and Jesus to the Law.
Abortion only became a prohibition under the Didace and was not a legal issue until obstetrics replaced midwifery. We did not impose abortion on anyway, although they did offer contraception for economic aid and for women to have more reproductive choices. Of course, moving from feudalism to capitalism requires mass labor. Socialism happens when workers demand equality of result with their employers, or at least a basic level beyond subsistence and the right to universal education, health and opportunity. Dangerous things if you want wealth to be a zero sum game. On this question I stand with Pope Benedict on birth control v. Socialism.
Marx's idea of Critical Thinking scared the papacy of his day. St. John Paul was not exactly a fan, both as a Vatican II theologian fighting with Murray, Kung and Ratzinger and as Pope. Benedict is still a social democrat, but he was put off by students who questioned everything, especially authority in the Church. He was and is an organization man. Critical thinking is not rejection so much as reexamination. Every generation does that, although most follow what they are taught. Those of us who question simply ask embarrassing questions rather then accepting what we are taught. Among academics, the good ones believe they know less for certain with age. That is uncomfortable for bishops, who question their faith and fear the question rather than use it to find true faith.
The question of the Real Presence survey came up.
Interesting question. I posted comments on the editorial and the earlier briefer. It is not the Real Presence so much as the magic of Transubstantiation that vexes them. Miracle or Magic? Loyalty or Love? Certainty or Faith? Power or Rights? They are all the same question. Blood Lust for God on the Cross or Vision Quest by God? Ogre or Papa? Basic questions that say more about the Church than God. Which choices are the narrow gate? Self reliance or community? Examine your conscience or show this to your pastor and see what he says.
No comments:
Post a Comment