I put a question mark here, because I may have missed a nuance, but to me this looks so.
People on the left very often come from backgrounds that have never taught them the unborn are to be treated with respect. Are you offended when a Hindu does not worship Christ? Then why are you offended when somebody who does not believe the unborn to be as important as the born acts on their principles? Should their minds be changed? Sure.
This may be a fine reasoning to the effect that someone on the left who doesn't oppose abortion may not be guilty before God for this fact. It is less of an argument for having people on the left actually run the country.
Unless you presuppose that what matters most in rulers is not what they do as rulers, but whether they are in grace or in mortal sin. However, that position is Lollard, Waldensian, not Catholic.
Politics is not about deciding who is in grace or in mortal sin, but what policemen and other people with immediate or mediated power should be enforcing.
I previously read Mark Shea writing that there is nothing ominous in George Soros supporting abortion, since Jews don't believe abortion is wrong. In politics, this is from the Catholic point of view an argument for blocking Jews from doing politics other than among themselves. Mark Shea may consider that position "Christianist", but if we reflect on what the word "nation" means in the context of "all nations", Matthew 28:19, it would involve the political rulers.
How do you expect that to happen when it is obvious that even most of those who claim to care about the unborn do nothing of the kind when the unborn are inconvenient to their real aims of money, power and racist oppression of the weak?
That is why I oppose the slogan "adoption, the responsible option" and want a society where young girls are better empowered to be effectively mothers even at 14 and at 13. One in which having "your education" already done at least secondary, perhaps even college education, is a must for a man to have a job and family, and one in which marriage at a girls age under 18 (in some of the better states 16) a very cumbrous affair, is one in which the opposite is the case, girls are worse off at being mothers than before.
Now, this being so, I will let my readers read the citations in context, here is the link to Mark Shea's post:
A reader asks why I’m so much harder on “pro-life” Christians
January 31, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/01/a-reader-asks-why-im-so-much-harder-on-pro-life-christians.html
One more, even as to assessment of the person not raised to being pro-life. Compared to a Hindu not worshipping Christ.
As Catholics, we believe there is a natural law, one which binds because it is naturally accessible to all. It may be stifled on an issue because of bad education, and it may also not be stifled on that issue until the person stifles it himself or herself to fit on with those having provided that bad education. No man can be absolutely presumed to be excused from believing an issue of the natural law just because he wasn't raised to do so. That would be to say "natural law is only accessible to men as cultural law, by tradition", and before one had a "Traditionalist" dissent from Vatican II, this is the position that was labelled and condemned under the name "traditionalism". Not sure which Popes so condemned it, or if it was Holy Office, but some did.
Also, explaining why Christ is God naturally takes time to tell a story. Explaining why abortion is murder does not take that amount of time.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Ignatius of Antioch
1.II.2019
No comments:
Post a Comment