Replies

Catholics need to explain this to me. The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty. Why this furor over a "pro-choice" politician receiving communion and not the same furor over a "pro-death penalty" politician receiving communion? Kerry after all never committed an abortion and said he is personally against abortion. But being a man and not a doctor he will never commit an abortion personally. So what is his sin? Allowing others to be able to commit the sin of abortion? When did allowing someone the free will to commit a sin become a sin?

The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty.

Of the two, only abortion is an intrinsic evil.

The Church "does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267). The death penalty, in the prudential judgement of JPII, should be rarely applied, but it is morally permissible in some situations. So good Cathoics can disagree over what is prudent in a particular situation vis-a-vis the death penalty.

When did allowing someone the free will to commit a sin become a sin?

"A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 4)."

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 73).

It's allowing someone to commit murder.

The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty.

The Church regards abortion as it regards murder. The Church sees no moral difference.

The Church's position regarding the death penalty is different. The Church has always maintained that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty for serious crimes like murder. Whether the death penalty should be imposed in particular cases, however, is a matter of prudential judgement.

The current pope has said that since it is now possible in some societies to incarcerate criminals for life without risk to society, there is no need for the death penalty. This is a prudential recommendation, not a repudiation of the death penalty in principle.

Why this furor over a "pro-choice" politician receiving communion and not the same furor over a "pro-death penalty" politician receiving communion?

Because abortion, like murder, is always wrong (except when the mother's life is at risk). It's intrinsically evil. The imposition of the death penalty isn't always wrong. It isn't intrinsically evil.

Kerry after all never committed an abortion and said he is personally against abortion.

Just substitute the word "murder" for "abortion," and the Church's reasoning becomes clear: "Kerry after all never committed a murder and said he is personally against murder, [but he thinks women should have the right to choose murder].

But being a man and not a doctor he will never commit an abortion personally. So what is his sin? Allowing others to be able to commit the sin of abortion? When did allowing someone the free will to commit a sin become a sin?

Failing to work to criminalize murder (abortion), as a legislator, is a grave sin of ommission.

"Kerry after all never committed an abortion and said he is personally against abortion. But being a man and not a doctor he will never commit an abortion personally. So what is his sin?"

I am no theologian. But I know my faith. The sins of omission and commission are probably not thought of by many people, but they are sins.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251b.htm

"Omission" is here taken to be the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed. Moralists took pains formerly to show that the inaction implied in an omission was quite compatible with a breach of the moral law, for it is not merely because a person here and now does nothing that he offends, but because he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act. The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation."

To me, the ability to CAST THE VOTE in issues that are moral truths is omission.

Of course, as I said. I am no theologian, nor am I judging the man. I merely measure my own thoughts and attitudes against Kerry who brings his Catholicism into the presidential race.