John XXIII Si, John Paul II No
Joe Biden on reconciling his Catholicism with his support for legal abortion (attempt #154):
We’ve always believed from the outset that abortion is wrong. But throughout the years, debated the degree to which it is wrong. There are always cases where it is never a first choice. It is always viewed as a dire decision. But throughout the church’s history, we’ve argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it’s almost a gradation.
We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, ‘Look, there are circumstances in which it’s wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception.
It’s always been a debate. I take my religion very seriously.
To sum it up, as a Catholic, I’m a John XXIII guy, I’m not a Pope John Paul guy.
More. (HT: Jimmy Akin)
Comments are closed.
One of the most disheartening thing to me about many Catholics on the left, is that to inevitably end up making intellectually dishonest arguments about abortion (see, e.g., Kmiec recently, Pelosi, Biden, etc.), or even, on a more modest scale, MM’s constant recitation of the abortion rate decline under Clinton which also has occurred under every President since 1980 or his incorrect assertion that McCain and Obama’s positions on ESCR are identical.
When Kmiec first came out for Obama, he made reasonable, if unpersuasive, arguments about other issues etc., and now he’s arguing that sensitivity to religious differences requires that Roe be preserved (two problems there 1) He’s mischaracterizing abortion as about ‘religious differences’, 2) His approach, we disagree so pro-abortion people should make the laws, is basically a ‘personally opposed’ cop-out). Biden and Pelosi and Kerry, etc., all are making intellectually dishonest arguments designed to obfuscate the issue.
his incorrect assertion that McCain and Obama’s positions on ESCR are identical.
How are their positions on ESCR not identical?
Well, at least he’s Catholic. That is not true of Obama, McCain, or Sarah “Spirit of Witchraft” Palin.
Katerina:
I’d strongly recommend (again), Robert George’s article on Obama and Abortion:
“But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning.”
MM:
I don’t have a great deal of affection for ‘Catholics’ who distort Church teaching and history at every opportunity. In fact, I’d prefer a politician was not Catholic, than one who was and frequently caused scandal through their obstinate refusal either to learn what the Church teaches or stop misrepresenting it. There’s nothing Catholic about Biden’s misrepresentation of the Church’s teachings.
Well, at least he’s Catholic.
No, actually, I’d say that makes it worse.
Katerina, here’s the link to the article. Jonathan also posted it last week, and I think it is important to read his thorough treatment of Obama’s record. George, as I am sure you are aware, is a respected ‘elite’ professor at Princeton:
http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml
No doubt Biden will regret this.
Honestly, though, I wonder if our expectations from Catholic politicians are reasonable. We pounce on those who don’t speak 100% with the bishops, when very few of us could measure up to the same standards. Yet we, as consumers of media, crave this kind of overblown scandal. Remember the nutty coverage contraception, until relatively recently, used to get in the news, despite everyone knowing the faithful simply weren’t buying Humanae Vitae?
As far as what Biden said in the quote above, I’m sure many of his Catholic supporters are wincing. But is it because of the content, or because of the feared consequences for Obama/Biden? Isn’t it commonplace or cliche to admire the perceived openness of John XXIII, and increasingly legitimate to speak openly of the perceived excesses of John Paul II? Has no one else ever heard this voiced by a Catholic? (And what if Biden had said Pius X or XII instead of John Paul II? Would that be OK?)
Really: do we as Catholics want to pursue the vilification of our own, when we know most of our Catholic neighbors and the folks next to us in the pew think and say the same things? Maybe. I don’t know.
Given that Biden’s sentiment seems fairly common, and that he’s not running for seminary rector, I’d be interested to hear where Vox-Nova readers think the scandal of Biden’s statement lies. (Assuming “Church” means more than “Pope + vocal conservative US bishops”)
Again, maybe this is appropriate and necessary. But it seems, to me at least, unproductive and less than fully honest.
Get your Obama saint cards and votive candles here. Minion might buy them all up, so act fast.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQzNWU3YjliYzQwNDQwYjE1Y2U0MzA5NjU1MTYyZWY=
“Again, maybe this is appropriate and necessary. But it seems, to me at least, unproductive and less than fully honest.”
Are you saying it is ‘less than fully honest’ to point out that Biden is being ‘less than fully honest’? Could you walk me through that syllogism?
Well, at least he’s Catholic. That is not true of Obama, McCain, or Sarah “Spirit of Witchraft” Palin.
So what? Are you suggesting that voters should engage in religious discrimination?
fus01:
I meant I think it’s less than fully honest for Catholics who share the opinions of Joe Biden, or Kerry before him–and that may not include many here, but it does include many where I live*–to reject a candidate who has been scolded by bishops for holding those very same opinions! If it were just the die-hard one-issue voters rejecting a candidate, well, that’s honest. Rather, I mean folks rejecting someone who thinks as they do. And I think this comes down to how we view “Church.” What we see on the TV is RC prelates vs. candidate; what I think is closer to reality is RC prelates vs. most RC faithful.
[*heartland/red-state/"real" america]
I’m I seeing things or did MM and Katerina just jump to the defense of a Catholic who may very well be publicly excommunicated come November? Interesting.
Craig,
I think there are deeper issues involved in your portrayal of Bishops v. laity, but I am perplexed that you know people who could say “Biden misrepresents what the Catholic Church teaches on abortion, and so do I, but Biden is bad.” I’ve never met someone who was a pro-choice Catholic who simultaneously criticized Biden or Kerry harshly for being functionally pro-choice. Have you?
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/Bishop's%20Pastoral%20Letters/RespectLifeSundaySeptember30th2008.asp
fus01,
No, I don’t know anyone who makes that statement in your post above. Working on a campaign a few years back, though, I spoke with a lot of people who told me they could not vote for my candidate because of his stance abortion, what they bishop had said, etc. etc. The longer we’d chat, however, the more *they* would often volunteer exceptions to their pro-life stance, their self-identified RC orthodoxy, etc. (One such lady–who even had yard signs urging people to “vote pro-life”–who could not vote for my candidate, told me over the course of our conversation that well, yeah, there should be exceptions for rape, then incest, then health of the mother, and, finally, the kicker: if her daughter should become pregnant! Now that’s just one lady who came off as especially foolish, I’ll give you that, but still.)
That’s what I don’t don’t understand. Many people are either conflicted on this, or they stifle their own feelings (perhaps rightfully) at the urging of their bishop, or maybe abortion is even for some kind of a deal-breaker which allows them to give a “reason” for voting how they were leaning anyhow. Probably other reasons, too. And again, I’m speaking here only of those who privately and in conversation hold reservations about the official RC line, yet do not vote this way. My experience has been that this includes a great many Catholics.
-To sum it up, as a Catholic, I’m a John XXIII guy, I’m not a Pope John Paul guy.-
That doesn’t mean anything to me. Really. I read the sentence and get no meaning from it. Can anyone explain it to me?
So he’s a John XXIII guy, eh?
So I assume he goes to Mass with one of these,
http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111222/Order-Mass-Missal-Blessed-John-XXIII/
at one of these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass
What’s your point, SB? I own that 1962 missal and am rather fond of the extraordinary form of the Mass. And you know my political opinions. My apologies for not conforming to stereotypes!!!
Joseph, you are seriously deluded. Biden is a man who opposes public funding of abortin and partial birth abortion. As legislators go, that’s not actually pro-abortion. Are you proposing to publicly excommunicate all Catholics who voted for Bush’s war and support torture?
Craig – I don’t doubt that you encountered people who had incoherent positions on church teaching and abortion going door-to-door, although one could still support abortion in the rape, incest, even first trimester (as the majority of voters do), and still oppose the extreme position adopted in Roe/Casey.
Nevertheless, I think it usually works the other way; people who say they are pro-life stretch facts and arguments to the breaking point (and beyond) to justify voting for abortion/ESCR extremists like Obama. Kmiec, Pelosi, Biden, even our own MM (on a lesser scale) have all done this.
MM:
I truly am intrigued by your comment about Biden “at least he’s Catholic.”
What does that mean? That you are a religious bigot when it comes to politics?
And as for Biden being opposed to tax funded abortions?
Wrong (again.)
Biden hasn’t voted against taxpayer funding of abortions since a July 1999 vote prohibiting the funding of abortions in the health plans of federal employees.
And he has had several opportunities to do so.
That second “SB,” who referred to the Tridentine mass, isn’t me. I made the (unanswerable) point that it’s not really very nice for MM to suggest that we voters engage in religious discrimination.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4187.html
Why bother with facts S.B., MM may have a ‘sneaky suspicion’ that Biden is less pro-abortion than his voting record and hostility to pro-life judges suggests.
Two SBs now? I thought one was enough!!
Oh, and if you want to stop abortion on American imperial military outposts, then the simplest solution is to close the bases.
On the so-called “religious discrimination”: is it wrong to give preference to a Catholic? Were American Catholics wrong to flock to Kennedy? Are Mormons wrong to tilt toward Romney?
If not morally wrong, it’s at least childish. I think you would perceive that principle a bit more clearly if reminded of the misguided folks who are spreading the rumor that Obama is a Muslim.
And yes, your repeated remarks denigrating Palin’s Pentacostal religion are just as wrong as anyone who has criticized Obama for being a Muslim.
Well, not just as wrong (it’s obviously untrue that Obama is a Muslim), but just as wrong in that it is an expression of religious prejudice.
And yes, your repeated remarks denigrating Palin’s Pentacostal religion are just as wrong as anyone who has criticized Obama for being a Muslim.
You persist in this idiotic garbage. MM didn’t criticize Palin’s Pentecostalism. He criticized her warped americanist theology. Those are two different things altogether. Not all Pentecostals think like Sarah Palin. Get a clue.
MM didn’t criticize Palin’s Pentecostalism. He criticized her warped americanist theology.
Learn to read, pal. Upthread, he mocked her belief that witchcraft exists. That has nothing to do with “americanist theology.”
Michael I. – Not to disrupt your rant, but when MM referred to her as Sarah “Spirit of Witchcraft” Palin above, I think he was mocking her Pentecostalism. Given that MM later went on to assert that there are more racists than pro-lifers in the Republican party in a subsequent post, I’d say he’s doing great work in advancing Catholic dialogue today.
Upthread, he mocked her belief that witchcraft exists.
Quoting myself there . . . actually, he wasn’t mocking her belief in witchcraft (if she does believe in it). He was mocking her (just as did a previous VN thread) for allowing a black pastor to pray for her, and then not immediately and vociferously objecting when that black pastor mentioned witchcraft.
I have read much about Mrs Palin’s religious views, but very little from Mrs Palin herself. And what I have read, coming from her, is what we hear from Evangelicals in general. Why the mockery?
Rob, Biden says he’s a John XXIII guy because Bl. Pope John XXIII was supposedly more liberal than the supposedly uptight and conservative Pope John Paul. Nobody has mentioned how unutterably horrific it is that Biden is using Good Pope John as cannon fodder to defend his poor assimilation of Catholic social doctrine. If the saints were litigious there would be a suit for slander in the offing.
I don’t know where “at least he’s Catholic” comes from. Surely you are not being serious. The conservative hero Antonin Scalia is also Catholic, he of the “it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under their fingernails,” school with regard to torture. The fact that these public figures profess Catholicism and then proceed to open their mouths and spew inanities isn’t anything to be happy about – I find it embarrassing.
Maggie
Craig’s story about the “pro-life” woman who believes in a right to abortion in the case of her own daughter is right in line with the debunking of anyone with un-PC ideals that we have come to expect from the opinion-setting elites. The point, of course, is that nobody could really take Catholic teachings on life-issues literally–or even seriously–so live-and-let-live (meaning, in this case, kill-and-let-die). I’m sure we’ll hear many, many such stories when the FOCA comes up for a vote, as President-Select Obama has promised it will.
Ron,
You found me out. I made it all up, in order to debunk your non-PC ideals. Because I’m an opinion-setting elite, that’s why! Bwahaha!
It’s a conspiracy, of course, just like the upcoming election, but you called that one, too. You’re good.