A latte lies from a cafeteria Catholic

When a Catholic education and $3.75 gets you a latte and this sort of nonsense, you might want to ask yourself: "Does the guy behind the coffee bar know more about Catholic doctrine and moral theology than I do?" Chances are, he does. Chances are, for example, he knows this is pure rot:

THE American Roman Catholic Bishops stubborn insistence on scaling back women's abortion rights in pending health-care-reform legislation demonstrates their willingness to "toss off the bridge" millions of people who would benefit.

(Okay, so the barista likely doesn't know that was pure rot, but he probably doesn't have this little bio attached to his espresso machine: "Sam R. Sperry served as an editor at the Seattle P-I and on the Washington State Catholic Conference Board. He is a lifelong Catholic educated here in Catholic schools.")

So, nationalized health care is an objective moral imperative, but abortion is morally subjective and constantly negotiable? Why? How so? And how, exactly, is refusing to pay for an abortion the same as "scaling back women's abortion rights"? Next you'll be quoting Aquinas in support of your "argument"! Sure enough:

The philosophical and moral aspects of the bishops' political stance are not universally accepted. Nor do they rest on as solid a basis as they might want us to believe.

First, the bishops' position reflects the church's questionable doctrine that human life begins at the moment of conception. Not only is this not demonstrable biologically. There also is no consensus among traditional Roman Catholic authorities on the point, including the venerable St. Thomas Aquinas, the foundational 13th-century scholar of the Catholic Church. When first conceived, a fertilized egg possesses only human potential, not "humanness" itself. When that occurs has never, in moral terms, been satisfactorily resolved.

The USCCB, of course, has already explained that the traditional Catholic authority known as "The Magisterium," has said a thing or two about this matter:

In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church's moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

We give medieval theologians a bit of slack when it comes to things they couldn't have known. But what do you get for a Catholic who writes this sort of disingenuous slop?

Moreover, Catholic teaching admits to such taking of life as in self-defense and in its doctrine of a "just war." So even for Catholics there is no absolute aspect to the sanctity of life, however precious we hold life to be.

Wrong! Put down the Curran and pick up the Catechism:

Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere. (par. 2261)

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not." (par. 2263)

Why, it seems so...so....logical! And it is. Unlike this final travesty:

Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that it is up to an individual, not the church, to resolve matters of conscience as best that individual can inform her or his conscience. For some women, that may include considering an abortion.

No need to say anything more than "Read this and this and this—and get started on the Catholic education you apparently never got in Catholic schools."

Comments

[Ed Peters]

"While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church's moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development."

Further fueling the canonical conundra of the day were simple questions of evidence. How does prove an early abortion, when one could scarely PROVE pregancy in those early weeks?

[Rev. Don Blickhan]

Sam Sperry is another catholic (small "c") who prefers the Catholic "brand" but not the substance of the Faith. Did it ever occur to him that the Legislation does not NEED to have abortion covereage - which after all is NOT health care?

[Jack]

Another religiously illiterate American. what a surprise.

[Telemachus]

"Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that it is up to an individual, not the church, to resolve matters of conscience as best that individual can inform her or his conscience. For some..."

- "... women, that may include considering an abortion."
- "... men, that may include considering the beating of women."
- "... Nazis, that may include considering the gassing of Jews."
- "... Americans, that may include considering the lynching of blacks."
- "... Marxists, that may include considering the shooting of Christians."
- etc.

Flawless logic, eh-what? What a joke.

There is nothing unjustifiable if choices depend purely on the "individual conscience." Only arbitrary will remains. If this is true, there is no objective morality to speak of, and the barrel of a gun is the sole arbiter of justice. Welcome to Hell.