Pro-lifers should rejoice in the defeat of Kamala Harris, and of the Democratic Party, which remains the greatest threat to the unborn in American politics. But they cannot rest, because their job is only half done. The second greatest threat has yet to be dealt with, and that is Donald Trump.
Many pro-life Trump supporters will be shocked and angered at such a statement. But I urge them to resist this emotional reaction and dispassionately consider the cold, hard facts. Trump supports preserving access to the abortion pill, which is responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States. Since these pills can be sent by mail into states where abortion is restricted or banned, preserving such access largely undermines recent state-level pro-life measures. Trump also actively opposes those measures in any event, insisting that they are “too tough” and need to be “redone.” He has repeatedly said that, even at the state level, abortion must remain legal beyond six weeks. And he wants the federal government to pay for, or to force insurance companies to pay for, in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments – a practice that results in the destruction of more human embryos than even abortion does. The only threat to the unborn Trump has clearly and consistently opposed is late-term abortion, which accounts for a mere 1% of abortions. In short, the policies Trump favors would prevent very few abortions and encourage the discarding of millions of embryos. True, Trump is much better than Harris in supporting the rights of pro-lifers. But he is now only a little better in upholding the rights of the unborn.
To be sure, the enthusiasm of many pro-lifers for Trump is understandable. The Supreme Court Justices he appointed were crucial to overturning Roe v. Wade. He took other pro-life steps during his first term, such as reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. Pro-lifers are desperate for a champion, and Trump’s grit and victories over pro-choice extremists like Harris and Hillary Clinton can make him seem to fill the bill. But none of that changes the unhappy facts summarized in the previous paragraph. None of it changes the fact that Trump rigged the GOP party platform process so as to exclude pro-lifers and ram through a removal of the pro-life plank. None of it conflicts with the clear evidence that Trump pushed a pro-life agenda during his first term only out of political expediency rather than conviction, and has reverted to the moderate pro-choice position that he held for decades because he judges that that is now the politically more expedient course.
When I and others raised the alarm about these problems during the campaign, there were many pro-life Trump supporters who quietly acknowledged them but urged that criticism of Trump be muted until after the election, lest it help Harris. But the election is now over and Trump won handily. There is no longer any excuse for keeping silent. And pro-lifers must not keep silent, because Trump’s policies on these matters are gravely immoral. Let’s look more closely at both the IVF issue and Trump’s current stance on abortion to see just how grave the situation is.
The gravity of the IVF issue
The Catholic Church is the best-known critic of IVF, but it is crucial to emphasize that the moral problems with IVF have nothing essentially to do with specifically Catholic premises, or indeed with religious premises of any other kind. As with abortion, even an atheist could object to IVF on completely secular moral grounds (even if in fact most atheists no doubt don’t object to it). There are many moral problems with IVF, but for present purposes I will focus only on those that anyone who already agrees that abortion is wrong should be able to see. This is by no means a trivial exercise, because in recent months, a number of people often thought of as staunchly pro-life have endorsed IVF. Trump himself is an example, as are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and other Republican U.S. Senators. It is important for pro-lifers tempted to accept IVF to see that they cannot do so consistently with their opposition to abortion.
Now, in vitro fertilization itself simply involves bringing sperm and egg together outside the normal context of the womb, so as to yield a new human embryo. While there are moral grounds for objecting to this practice, this much does not amount to homicide, as abortion does. But it is by no means the end of the story. For the IVF procedure to yield the results desired, producing a single embryo is not sufficient. Usually several embryos are generated, even as many as a dozen. From them, those considered the best candidates are chosen for implantation in the mother’s womb. The rest are discarded, used for research, or frozen for possible future use. Among those implanted, one is often judged the healthiest and brought to term, and the others aborted if the mother does not want more than one child.
Destroying unused embryos is morally on a par with abortion, and killing unwanted embryos after implantation just is a kind of abortion. To speak harshly but truthfully, the destruction of embryos that is typically involved in IVF is murder, no less than abortion is. A recent estimate puts the number of embryos lost in in the IVF process every year in the United States at over a million and a half – twice the number of abortions that occur in the U.S. every year. Nor, again, is this an evil that can realistically be avoided if IVF is to have the results desired from it. Experts judge that “discarding embryos is inherent to the IVF process.”
Freezing embryos indefinitely is also gravely evil. Most of those frozen are simply abandoned. But even those that are not are done a grave injustice. A child has a right to be provided for by his parents, with food, shelter, instruction, and the like. Any parent who would deprive a child of these things would be considered wicked. But how much more does a child have a right to be nurtured in the womb and brought into the world, which is a precondition of these other goods? A parent who leaves an embryo frozen in the expectation that it might eventually be taken by others is comparable to someone who abandons a child on a doorstep. A parent who allows a frozen embryo to be abandoned altogether, eventually to die, is comparable to the pagans of old who would abandon unwanted babies on garbage heaps.
To characterize a presidential administration that actively promotes IVF as “pro-life” would be ludicrous, indeed obscene. Yet Trump intends for his administration to do just this. Again, he wants the federal government either to pay for all the costs of IVF procedures, or to force insurance companies to do so. If Catholic institutions are forced to participate, this would be an assault on religious freedom no less grave than Obama’s attempted contraception mandate. To be sure, Trump has indicated that he might be open to a religious exemption. But that is nowhere near good enough. The fundamental problem is not that Catholics would be forced to participate in the murder of embryos, bad as that would be. The fundamental problem is the murder of embryos.
Some might suggest that Trump’s call for an IVF mandate was just campaign rhetoric that will quickly be forgotten. But while we can hope this is true, we cannot complacently assume that it is, and in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. Trump has not merely made a perfunctory statement or two on the issue. On the contrary, he repeatedly and enthusiastically promoted the IVF mandate during the campaign, going so far as to characterize himself as “the father of IVF” and to pledge that the GOP will now be “the party for IVF” even more than the Democrats. Other Republicans with pro-life reputations have also in recent months taken positive action to promote IVF. Even JD Vance, despite his reputation as a faithful pro-life Catholic, has enthusiastically spoken in favor of it. Elon Musk, a major Trump ally and advisor, is an especially vigorous proponent of IVF, several of his children having been conceived via the procedure.
As one commentator has concluded, “if Trump makes good on his promise of federally-funded IVF, it will be one of the most objectively anti-life acts in US government history.” But even this is only the half of the problem.
Trump is now pro-choice
In the years since Roe was overturned, Trump has repeatedly said that the abortion issue should now be left to the states rather than the federal government. Yet he has during the same period also repeatedly criticized state-level restrictions on abortion. When the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of enforcing an abortion ban, Trump complained that it “went too far.” When Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after six weeks, Trump condemned the ban as “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” The reason, he explained, is that he thinks “the six week is too short, there has to be more time” – more time, that is to say, for the mother to decide whether to have an abortion. And again, he says that the restrictive measures some state Republicans have pushed for are “too tough, too tough” and “are going to be redone.”
During the campaign, Trump repeatedly obfuscated on Florida’s Amendment 4, which would have expanded abortion access even to late term. At one point, when asked whether he would vote against it, he responded that he would “be voting that we need more than six weeks” – thereby giving the impression that he would vote for the amendment. After an outcry from pro-lifers, Trump then said that he would vote against it, but reiterated that he still thought a six week ban was too restrictive. But then, on Election Day, he refused to say whether he had in fact voted against the amendment.
At one point, Trump said that a fifteen-week ban on abortion at the federal level might be “reasonable” and reflected “the number of weeks” he was “thinking in terms of.” He later changed course and declared that he would veto any federal ban. But when you consider his initial view that a fifteen-week federal ban would reflect a “reasonable” time frame, together with his repeated criticism of six-week bans at the state level, the natural conclusion to draw is that the most Trump would support in defense of the unborn is a fifteen-week ban on abortion at the state level. In other words, Trump’s position seems to be that abortion should be legal, even at the state level, before fifteen weeks.
That is manifestly an example of what every pro-lifer before twenty minutes ago would call a pro-choice position. It is what no pro-lifer would have tolerated in a Republican presidential candidate before Trump. True, it is not as extreme a pro-choice position as the one that Kamala Harris and other Democrats now routinely take. But it is still manifestly pro-choice, and not pro-life.
Now, 93% of abortions in the U.S. occur at thirteen weeks or earlier – that is to say, precisely during the period that Trump apparently wants abortion to be legal even at the state level. And again, he has also stated that he “will not block” access to abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions and can be mailed across state lines into states with restrictive abortion laws. In short, Trump’s current position on abortion would permit well over 90% of abortions even at the state level. As with his IVF policy, it would be ludicrous and indeed obscene to characterize this as remotely close to a “pro-life” position.
Here too it would be naïve to think that Trump’s recent statements are mere campaign rhetoric that will be forgotten now that he has been elected. Trump has not merely refrained from advocating pro-life policy when running for a second term. He has actively fought against such policies when Republicans have pushed them even at the state level, and took positive action to remove from the GOP platform its commitment to defending the lives of the unborn. He has emphasized that his new administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” standard code for pro-choice policies. Late in his campaign, Trump’s wife Melania released a memoir which was loudly marketed as, of all things, an expression of her commitment to abortion rights. It would be absurd to suppose that the Trump campaign would permit this if it were not trying to send a reassuring message to those worried that Trump would return to pro-life advocacy once elected. And far from distancing himself from this message, Trump has effusively praised the book (and at the Catholic Al Smith dinner, of all places). He has also now surrounded himself with pro-choice advisors like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, and gotten even the once staunchly pro-life Vance to temporize on the issue.
Some pro-life Trump supporters might suggest that while Trump’s current position is regrettable, it is irrelevant. By helping to overturn Roe, they might say, he has opened the door to fighting abortion at the state level, and pro-lifers can now do this as effectively without Trump’s support as they could with it. But this too is naïve. Trump is clearly convinced that the pro-life cause is now a liability for him and for the GOP in general. That is the best explanation for why he has fought even state-level restrictions rather than staying neutral. With only thin majorities in Congress and worries about how the midterms might go, he is likely to continue to try to discourage Republican governors and lawmakers from pressing for restrictions on abortion. Presidents can exert considerable pressure, especially when they are popular with the party base and have won decisive electoral victories. And as I have argued in a previous article, Trump’s record shows that he is likely to be vindictive against those who resist him on this matter. Pro-lifers will have their work cut out for them.
Some common responses
I’ve found that while some pro-life Trump supporters are clear-eyed about these problems, others are extremely reluctant to face up to them. There are several stock responses I’ve seen over and over, not only throughout the campaign but even after Trump won. It is worthwhile to explain why, though emotionally attractive to some, these responses completely miss the point or otherwise have no force:
- “How can you say Trump is pro-choice?He got Roe overturned! Have you no gratitude?”
Yes, Trump was instrumental in overturning Roe and deserves thanks for that. But getting rid of Roe does not by itself save any unborn lives. It merely removes a certain obstacle to saving them. One has to take further positive steps in order actually to protect the unborn. And the trouble is that Trump has both opposed such steps (insofar as he has actively opposed both federal action against abortion and the state-level measures Republicans have pushed for), and also proposed a new policy that positively threatens the unborn (the IVF mandate).
Suppose someone bought you a car but also both made it difficult or impossible for you to get any gasoline, and encouraged others to steal the car. Obviously, it would be silly for someone to defend him by saying “Don’t be ungrateful! After all, he bought you the car!” Buying someone a car is hardly much of a gift if you also make it impossible for the person to use or keep it. The point of having a car, after all, is to drive it. Similarly, for pro-lifers, the point of overturning Roe was to open the door to protecting the unborn. For Trump to help overturn Roe but then go on to oppose federal and state-level restrictions and promote IVF defeats this purpose. Trump is taking back with his left hand what he gave with his right.
- “But it would be politically unrealistic to push for a national ban on abortion or IVF!”
This is no doubt true, but it is beside the point, because no one is criticizing Trump for failing to do that. His critics realize that current political circumstances make such bans politically unfeasible. But it is one thing simply to refrain from pushing for a federal abortion ban. It is quite another thing actively to oppose such a ban, and actively to remove the pro-life plank from the GOP platform. It is one thing simply not to oppose IVF. It is quite another actively to promote IVF and to push for federal funding of it. Moreover, the problem is not just that Trump actively opposes any federal action in this area. It is that he has also actively opposed the steps pro-lifers have been taking even at the state level to restrict abortion.
- “AfterDobbs, abortion is a state-level issue anyway, so Trump’s current views are irrelevant”
There are three problems with this response. First, while Trump and his supporters often speak as if Dobbs permits the states alone to restrict abortion, that is not true. After Dobbs, either the states or the federal government may put restrictions on abortion. It may currently be politically unfeasible to push for federal restrictions, but it is dishonest to insinuate that the Dobbs decision somehow rules out such restrictions.
Second, even where state-level restrictions are concerned, Trump’s current views are not irrelevant. Again, though out of one side of his mouth he says that the states can do what they like, out of the other side he has been actively opposing recent state-level restrictions. He clearly thinks these restrictions are politically harmful to him and the GOP, and wants to discourage Republicans even at the state level from pushing for them. A president has tremendous influence on what happens in his party at all levels, especially when he has tight control over the party apparatus and has won a decisive electoral victory. Republican politicians down-ballot who want the support of the president and the party are bound to feel strong pressure not to resist him on the abortion issue.
Third, whatever one says about abortion, Trump’s proposed IVF mandate would itself be a federal initiative. It is he, not his critics, who is making of IVF’s threat to the unborn a federal issue rather than a state issue.
(Some Catholic Trump supporters have argued that the natural law principle of subsidiarity requires dealing with abortion only at the state level rather than the federal level. But this is not true, as I have shown in another article.)
- “No political candidate is going to fit some imagined ideal.By criticizing Trump, you are self-righteously making the perfect the enemy of the good and encouraging a purity spiral that will only damage the pro-life cause!”
This is a straw man. Trump’s pro-life critics are not demanding perfection. And again, they aren’t criticizing him for simply refraining from pushing a pro-life agenda in a hostile political climate. Rather, they are criticizing him for doing things that are positively gravely damaging to the pro-life cause. As we have seen, Trump’s current position on abortion would effectively permit over 90% of abortions, and his IVF proposal would actively promote a procedure that entails even more killing of the unborn than abortion does. That is not merely imperfect or less than ideal. It not only permits but positively facilitates the vast majority of killings of the unborn. It does not merely fail to promote the pro-life cause, but is directly contrary to it.
- “But Harris is worse!It would have been insane for pro-lifers to help her defeat Trump!”
Yes, Harris is even worse than Trump, which is why I consistently said for months that it would be better for her to lose and that it was justifiable for pro-lifers in swing states to vote for Trump in order to ensure that she lost. But as I also argued during the campaign, in no way did this entail that Trump’s current position was not seriously problematic, or that pro-lifers could be excused from criticizing his betrayal of the unborn. In any event, that is now moot. Harris has lost, Trump has won, and there is no longer any excuse (if there ever was one) for pro-lifers to remain silent.
- “This is all just Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)!You’re just a NeverTrumper!”
This is the most brain-dead response, and not really worthy of comment. But because it is extremely common, I’ll offer a reply.
First, I am neither a “NeverTrumper” nor “deranged” in my criticisms of him. Though I have always had serious reservations about Trump, I did vote for him in 2016 and 2020 because the alternatives were worse. To be sure, his behavior after his 2020 defeat, and especially what he tried to pressure Mike Pence to do, were in my opinion disgraceful and a grave assault on the rule of law. That alone should have prevented Republicans from ever nominating him again. All the same, had I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for him even in this election, just to keep Harris out. I have also many times explicitly acknowledged that Trump has real strengths and has done some good things, and that many of the things his critics say about him are false. My article “Trump: A buyer’s guide,” while very critical of him, also defends him against these excessive and unfair criticisms. No reasonable person who reads that article could accuse me of “TDS.”
If I really were suffering from “TDS,” I would have been writing critical things about Trump for years. In fact, in the years since he took center stage in American politics, I have written very little about him. The reason is that I find it very unpleasant to do so, given that so many of his biggest critics and biggest fans alike are unable to discuss the subject in a reasonable and civil way. Whenever I have said positive things about Trump, I have been accused of being part of the “MAGA cult” or the like. Whenever I have said critical things about him, I have been accused of “TDS” etc. So many people on both sides are so shrill and irrational on the subject of Trump that for a long time I judged it better to avoid saying much about him. Anyone who has been paying attention will know that I started frequently commenting on Trump only after he began to sell out the pro-life cause. The reason, as should be blindingly obvious to any rational person, is not that I have an animus against Trump, but because I have an animus against abortion.
In any event, even if I did have an animus against Trump, that would be completely irrelevant to the cogency of the arguments I have given here and in earlier articles. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits, whatever my motivations. To suppose otherwise is to commit a blatant ad hominem fallacy.
But while we’re on the subject of motivation, it’s worth noting that the issue cuts both ways. Pro-life Trump voters are often accused of putting politics ahead of their pro-life principles. The accusation is usually unfair, but not always. Any pro-life Trump voter who, even after he has been safely elected, would still refuse to criticize him for his betrayal of the unborn thereby proves the critics right.
(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Bless you Dr. Feser. Trump is RINO in Chief (Republican in name only). He admitted as much with his campaign and platform. Pro-life must stand up to him or lose any foothold in government.
From 1973-2000, pro-life in Texas never challenged the lies of RINOs. Nothing was accomplished until we published pro-life legislative scorecards and endorsed pro-life primary opponents. After we ceased supporting RINOs, pro-life started winning, all the way to triggering Dobbs.
Fear not! God is pro-life.
He also never makes mistakes.
I’m afraid you’re making a “no true Scotsman” argument about Republicans. No political party is like the Church, something with a real and unchangeable nature. On the contrary, the meaning of “Republican” (and “Conservative”, for that matter) varies as the people who wear that label vary their actions.
If Trump — and his supporters — are Republicans in Name Only, they’re pretty much the only Republicans out there … unless you count the George W. Bush’s and Mitt Romney’s, which are really no improvement.
It’s the same with the Boy Scouts — which, I suppose, are now “Scouts USA”. It’s the same with the Walt Disney Corporation, which would have appalled Mr. Disney and which is ashamed of him and the movies he made. It’s the same with the NFL and with Budweiser. We live in a time when the USMC is LGBTQ-friendly.
“Unless this broad truth be grasped, the whole story is seen askew. Pessimism is not in being tired of evil but in being tired of good. Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. It is when for some reason or other the good things in a society no longer work that the society begins to decline; when its food does not feed, when its cures do not cure, when its blessings refuse to bless.” — G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man
This passage was about the state of the world just before the coming of Christ, a world in which the vitality of both Greece and Rome was nearly exhausted, much as is the case for America and the West is today.
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation.” — Matthew 12:43-45
But we are not virtual pagans who have never heard the Gospel. Our society was built around the Gospel, but has rejected it. Consequences will follow. This is not something that can be cured by politics.
“But Carthage at any rate was dead, and the worst assault ever made by the demons on mortal society had been defeated. But how much would it matter that the worst was dead if the best was dying?” — Chesterton, The Everlasting Man
Maybe this sums it up well enough, with Carthage → Democrats and pagan Rome → Republicans.
Someplace Chesterton wrote that the way to understand current events is to read newspapers from 100 years ago. Well, Chesterton wrote that about 100 years ago, and reading him is a pretty good way to understand what’s going on now.
No worries. I’m not a Republican, just a pro-life realist who likes to win. And how we won! Even in this latest election, pro-life added to its majority in Texas. Pro-abortion politicians will need a Governor and supermajority in the Senate to begin dismantling the pro-life laws that have been enacted since 2000 (When Bush left for DC!;)
Praise God that decades ago pro-life leaders in Texas started ignoring arguments to keep losing and set about actually accomplishing something in Austin. And as for an appeal to a politically sterile Catholicism, who the audience? The Catholic lobby in Texas is already impotent. Pro-life leadership at the Capital is primarily Protestant, and they are too busy winning to listen to naysayers.
There is no effective pro-life political platform in Europe. Opposing RINOs in primaries is a better solution than giving up.
Only time will tell if this was really a win. I suspect it was merely a slow loss, rather than a fast loss, since Republicans have seen that they can dump the pro-life and pro-family planks and still get the votes of people who say they are pro-life and pro=family.
One must change the hearts and souls governing the mind of on the demand side of abortion and IVF irrespective of the laws to improve or deny access to abortionists.
The law is a teacher (Galatians 3). We must seek pro-life laws with all our might. Platitudes change nothing.
Yes, we must. But in a democracy, which we have at least to some extent, people can overturn laws–both good ones and bad ones depending on what is currently “fashionable.”
“The second greatest threat has yet to be dealt with, and that is Donald Trump.”
I disagree: the real threat lies in our homes and families and friends, who are, at minimum, indifferent (and in many cases totally on board) with fornication, contraception, IVF, surrogacy, and abortion. Those are the ones that pro-lifers need to convert.
Of course Trump, and nearly every other politician supports these things. Nearly everyone does. We live “in a democracy” (a “republic” actually). No politician is going to waste political capital on trying to force a ban on an unwilling, unchaste, population that overwhelmingly wants those things.
I note that our priests are mostly silent on these issues. That, more than anything, should tell you where the problem is.
Excellent comments Mrs. Hess! Right on point.
Well said. The minds and hearts of Christians, and especially Catholics, must be turned to Christ completely if this country is to be pro-life. Trump would have lost if he had been all in pro-life. Then what would pro-lifers do? 4 more years of the left might have made any good that is left in this country disappear and Catholics would be totally complicit. Morality and truth may be in the Catechism but not in many priests and people in the pews. And the left makes sure that the dissenters in the Church get plenty of press.
“Trump would have lost if he had been all in pro-life.”
Seriously? No. That’s not an argument; that’s an excuse and a poor one at that.
Mr. Olsen, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Trump was opposed to contraception, IVF, and abortion. Do you honestly believe he would have been elected if he were vocal about it? We can’t even get our priests to broach those topics.
We had Tudor Dixon in Michigan, and she went on record supporting Michigan’s old abortion ban. She lost quite a bit to Whitmer in 2022. While I don’t doubt Whitmer benefited somewhat from election corruption,I do think Dixon lost it in part due to her stance.
I think that Trump and Vance could have consistently and calmly emphasized that 1) they are going to leave these matters to the states, 2) that they are focused on the economy, foreign policy, sanity (re: wokism and trans-insanity), 3) that Harris is unfit and cannot be trusted re: a litany of issues (religious freedom, DEI stuff, foreign policy, the border), etc. They could have further emphasized (as they did in ways) that they are pro-family and want to focus on policies that strengthen families, etc. No need to capitulate.
Carl Olson is correct in his reply. Downplaying abortion by avoiding the subject was acceptable. Verbally promoting positive abortion policies is evil. If it was a ploy, it is still wrong. If he is serious, he will be the source of a civil war within the Republican Party.
Can’t reply to C. Olson below but Whitmer and Harris both seem to feel that life’s problem’s, or future problems, can be solved by reproductive freedom. Newsome had billboards out tying abortions to the Gospels.
Even if one doesn’t think there’s anything amiss with abortion, it’s a curious brain stance, and a clear sign of societal and economic ignorance. Don’t forget the dope deal was right in Whitmer’s mix at the same time.
You are absolutely right (regardless of anything else).
And I did not vote for Trump, nor Harris.
Mrs. Hess, when subsequent to Independence the States decided slavery had had had its day, they voted in Lincoln who had been saying just that and could be trusted with undertaking the nation’s renewal.
So I do not mean to recommend a civil war; only to point out, that a sea change is needed and only valid men can make that happen.
Trump stomped down on Roy Moore. And yet on MANY levels not merely pro-life, it was a bad move. The USA is made to wait to see what Trump will do next.
After the pro-life losses in red states, wouldn’t be smarter to focus on reducing demand for abortion at federal level through a pro-working class economy and JD Vance’s proposed child tax credits of 5k a year per kid? Different states can then restrict supply to the extent that it is politically acceptable.
Our pro-life position will never succeed from a ‘top-down’ stance i.e. imposed by court or legislative fiat. Killing others is legislation already on the books as is theft and a host of other objectionable acts. Yet, murders and thievery continues and will do so as long as man inhabits this planet.
The only true solution to abortion is a conversion of minds and hearts one person at a time. I have to believe that if every Catholic was clearly outspoken about abortion, it would have an impact on the collective mindset (even among some of those who profess the Catholic faith abortion is not morally objectionable). How many parents thoroughly indoctrinate their children about the evil of abortion and why it is a serious moral offense? How many and how often are homilies at Mass preached about the immorality of abortion? I recently made a suggestion that if the USCCB wanted to docsonething constructive, they would place billboards all around the country reading: “If you’re thinking of an abortion, first contact any Catholic parish…they will help you.” Do what truly will be effective
As an addendum to my comment above: I summarily reject this political posturing by Edward Feser. Marshall all the resources of Catholics worldwide to offer assistance to women facing a decision to abort their baby and you will see a massive turnaround of the collective pro-abort mindset. HINT: Just treat abortion as just another environmental issue – the environment of a woman’s uterus and Catholics will move to protect it. If we can strive to save: whales, sea turtles, Arctic seal pups, rhinoceros, and the snail darter fish then we can make an effort to save babies.
There’s got to be thousands and thousands of parishes in the USA alone. What if every single one of them offered all the assistance needed by a woman considering an abortion such as medical care, employment, housing, adoption options, etc? If such was in place, the number of abortions in this country would be decimated. It would also be one of the most effective evangelizing tools for the Catholic Church.
Let’s just recall for a second the incident about 18 years ago when Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Richmond, VA escorted a 14 year old immigrant girl in whose custody she was placed for an abortion. How can we as a Church criticize any politican for their stand on abortion? And, what made matters worse is that bishops at the USCCB tried to keep this information under wraps. First convert the minds and hearts of the faithful before condemning politicians’ stand on abortion.
Amen Deacon I agree with you. Edward Feser should stick to academics where he belongs his political views are not very encouraging.
Samuel, i agree…nor welcomed.
Addendum to the Addendum: Unless I missed it. Dr. Feser never told us whom he voted for in the election (presuming he voted). Knowing his choice would help put his remarks in context.
Conversion doesn’t happen so easily and not likely by the cleaver ploy of environmentalism. People tend to become radical environmentalists as a form of moral compensation from their repressed conscience in tolerating the extermination of inconvenient life, believing they serve the world by eliminating “excessive” lives.
People, including Catholics, who support abortion have a lot of resistance to overcome when they have to face the reality that they have been supporting the gravest evil in human history. It’s not like deciding to switch sports teams. They might have even been involved in the evil in their lives.
And we now must deal with our clergy and consecrated, in all their disciplines, who are not only morally lazy, but actively confident radicals, having been further inspired by a pope to come out of hiding and join his war against the notion of immutable truth. If truth is fungible, morality if fungible. They don’t even consider how they make the very idea of God’s involvement evaporate in the process.
I agree completely that the abortion war exists within the Church. If all 1.3 billion Catholics in the world were committed, abortion would not exist.
You might as well say that we will never stop rape from the top down by outlawing it, so we should give up on laws against rape.
But if someone actually made that argument, everyone would reasonably suspect that he really didn’t think rape was a big deal.
We have laws against rape because the vast majority of us think it is wrong.The vast majority do not think that contraception and abortion are wrong.
Hear, Hear!!!!!
I think the real question is profoundly simple…”When does one become my neighbor?” If an assault on an innocent unborn child doesn’t trigger that responsibility, I don’t know what would.
Excellent correct!
The pro-life abolitionist prays:
“Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:51-53)
“So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:16)
“He who is not with me is against me.” (Luke 11:23)
I agree that Pres. Trump needs to come to terms with what abortion really is–I am hoping that his devoutly Catholic wife, Melania, will have some influence in this area. I think he kept to a middle ground on abortion during the campaign to make SURE that he would be elected–his election was by no means a sure thing. I may be wrong about this, but I think he’s a shrewd businessman who knows how to “win the sale.”
But one of the main reasons why I voted for Trump is that I believe his policies, especially his economic policies, will make it possible for more women to be able to AFFORD to bear their babies. I think many women abort because they live in an impoverished situation (born into a poor family, pregnant in high school and mom to a baby or babies/toddlers, no husband, or at best, a boyfriend without a well-paying job, no child care other than an older relative, high school education or less, possibly some health issues like asthma, unsafe neighborhood with no places for an unskilled worker to find a good job, etc.).
Even women who are in a middle-class setting can experience money issues (e.g., husband or boyfriend loses his job, divorce, abuse) that scare them into thinking that they can’t have a baby at that time in their life.
I think that Pres. Trump’s policies will create more jobs for more people (not just jobs for the college-educated people). This will make it possible for them to bear their children and be assured that they will be able to afford to pay for a good child-care situation, plus provide necessities, insurance, etc. for their children.
And I think he will create policies that mean less factory closings, less inflation, etc.
I also think that Pres. Trump will create a “climate of life” during his term as President. He has given charitably to organizations that involve enriching the lives of children (e.g., Figure Skating in Harlem), and he himself has five children (who have all turned out well), so he is obviously someone who loves children and is a family man.
Finally, I don’t believe we can eliminate abortion by making it illegal. Abortion was happening before Roe. v. Wade, and it will continue to happen if it is made illegal.
I think that we need to be spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that this good work needs to be done not just by the priests and ministers, religious and missionaries, but by US, the laypeople who work in secular positions!
I think that Christians who are in Protestant church denominations that are pro-abortion need to LEAVE those denominations (and convert to Catholicism like me and my late husband and my entire family!),or work to get those evil policies changed in those denominations!
And above all, we need to continue to work with women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies and give them the resources they need to bear their babies and care for them (or give them up for adoption to the many families like my daughter’s who is unable to have more children after an infection destroyed her uterus).
Even if Pres. Trump manages to ram through pro-life policies under “Executive Orders,” unless the hearts of Americans are changed from pro-self to pro-life, we will see abortion come back when a new President is elected. This is a work for missionaries, not just the POTUS and other elected officials.
“his devoutly Catholic wife, Melania”
Are you serious? She issued a pro-choice screed just weeks before the election; c. f.:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights
Mrs. Whitlock, you get a resounding up-vote from me.
I am sorry but melania is fully pro choice as is revealed in her new book…which is so true of many catholics….God help us to convert our own straightforward and very bluntly…telling them their souls are on the line…..
There’s also the bit about marrying a divorced man.
Melania Trump is a strong, gracious, faithful wife to her husband, and she loves this country. However, in her own words in her recent book, she clearly stated she is pro-choice. Devout Catholic is not how I would describe her. Does she have a spiritual advisor in the Church? They need to talk!! It is enough that we have a pope who may lead some in the wrong direction; we do not need this first lady to be held up for her faithfulness to Catholicism. Let us choose her other great attributes to talk about.
First, I will always vote for the “lesser evil” who has a good chance to win the election. Second, I believe that politics ALWAYS follows the predominant culture of society (it is logical for politicians to advocate for political positions which the majority supports, else they have little chance to win). Third, we cannot legislate morality (unless, the VAST majority of society support such morality).
On the third point, I believe Catholics should try to evangelize esp those who they interact with on daily, weekly like family, co-workers, co-parishioners, neighbors, while I remain INTOLERANT in principle, but TOLERANT in action. I make sure people know what I believe, but I will never demand that they believe what I believe, nor will I cut off my relationship with them if they do not agree with me. There are many evils currently accepted by most Americans even by Catholics, eg, divorce, contraception, cohabitation, gay marriage, gay sex, movies promoting violence & casual sex, pop concerts displaying scantily clad dancers & singers, sports that glorifies violence & machismo. Can we legislate to make all these illegal? Sure we can, ONLY if 90% of society will insist & vote politicians who will ban these. Else, if only 51% of society support to ban all these evils, the 49% will probably rampage, riot, & burn whole towns & cities.
Finally, my point is prolife Catholics should focus on evangelization rather than political lobbying – promoting the study of the CCC, daily rosary, 1-hr Eucharistic adoration (even online), Divine Mercy Chaplet, frequent Confession. Sure, we have to proclaim the evil of all these (abortion, IVF, etc) to show our INTOLERANCE to these evils, BUT we should remain TOLERANT of what others believe. Change the culture thru evangelization, THEN & ONLY THEN will politics change.
Always? Does it matter how much less that lesser evil is, or is there no limit to the evil you are willing to support, so long as a greater evil exists elsewhere?
How about we all grow up and lose the drama. We have open borders, rising crime, the grooming and mutilation of children, a weak economy, and international threats. What makes you think that abortion is even going to ba a policy priority for Trump, honestly? Abortion is now in the hands of the states, that’s Trump’s position.
Sure, it’s not a priority for Trump, which is why Trump is not a priority for some of us. Why should he be? The commissioner of the NFL doesn’t have abortion as a priority — he’s got other things to do — but then I have better things to do on a Sunday than anything to do with his league.
Others, however, react to any criticism of Trump with the same equanimity a devout Muslim reacts to criticism of Mohammed.
Well, you’re the one with the reputation of defending Pope Francis repeatedly on this site, so you’ll understand if we don’t take you seriously when you criticize the president. Not exactly the paragon of discernment.
Cite one instance.
Too many to count!
It’s interesting that many comments support “changing hearts and minds” instead of pushing for laws that protect innocent life, especially with a Republican Senate and House. Democrats have imposed all kinds of legislation that promote abortion, euthanasia, and transgenderism. Archbishop Kurtz, former head of USCCB, rightly stated that “moral laws shape consciences. Not everybody was on board with anti-slavery laws but over time people began to understand the morality of such laws. We settled for Trump because he’s less worse than Harris on abortion and other Life issues, still supports the majority of the abortions and IVF, which kills more children in the abortion. For me, I will be doing everything possible to push for legislation as the other side has done for years.
It’s not just slavery, which is too far in the past to be exactly relevant. Other moral laws include laws against, for example, statutory rape. It would be desirable, of course, if everyone tempted to such crimes successfully resisted temptation, but we should not let that ideal prevent us from forbidding it by law. Another example comes from drugs like fentanyl. It’s popular today to say that people should be able to take whatever drugs they like, only (1) the nature of the drug prevents the addict from being able to return to sobriety, and (2) the consequences involve others besides the addict.
Government is for the temporal good of the people. It is often forgotten that virtue is a temporal good.
“Archbishop Kurtz, former head of USCCB, rightly stated that ‘moral laws shape consciences’.”
Does that apply to the moral law of the Catholic Church against contraception? Seems to me that that moral law was emphatically taught by Paul VI almost 60 years ago and, yet, virtually all Catholics contracept. So much for moral laws forming consciences.
While Trump is better than Harris would have been, the difference to millions of babies about to be killed or hanging in indefinite stasis in freezers is almost negligible. Everything Dr. Feser says here is on target– and Republicans who refuse to work to make abortion and IVF illegal must be held accountable at the ballot box if the pro-life movement is ever to make any difference politically. As long as voters refuse to hold Republicans accountable, in four years, the choice will almost certainly be worse than it was this year. As I’ve said, we need to reverse the leftist ratchet, not merely delay the next move to the left another four years. The only way the ratchet will start to move to the right again is if voters do not vote for leftists in rightist clothing, regardless of who is opposing them. Finally, a strong, pro-life third party needs to be organized starting right now so that in four years it will be something that pro-life voters– and Republicans– can’t summarily dismiss as being inconsequential or unrealistic.
Mike Pence was the most prolife viable Republican candidate and he dropped out early due to virtually zero traction. Our only other choice for some form of a prolife candidate was the less restrictive [than Pence] DeSantis. Nor did he gain sufficient traction. We were left with Trump as the lesser evil compared to the prodeath Harris.
Unfortunately, American politics is what it is primarily due to the overwhelming support of Catholics for various forms of abortion. What Catholics say when questioned on abortion, and how they support, vote for a candidate that restricts abortion is another matter. It’s the entire electorate that requires conversion. The quality of successful prolife candidates will follow.
Maybe Pence, or even someone better, would have had that traction if people who call themselves pro-life had made it clear that their position on abortion is non-negotiable. For far too many of them, pro-life is good, but a better economy, now THAT’S non-negotiable. After all, it has long been the GOP position (as made clear, for example, in their rationalizations of trade deals with China) that the love of money is the root of all good.
Right, and how long did Pence last in the primaries? He’s a non-starter, for good reasons.
Enjoy your 20 pieces of silver.
Possibly so. Catholics as a majority today are nominal. Although the vote for Trump offers an opportunity for the Church. It wasn’t simply economics that motivated the Catholic vote. Most still have a conscience and realize the evil in the sexual mutilation of our children, the government push on LGBT equality.
That, I’m afraid, is a lost cause. The only thing more important to Trump than being reactionary is feeling he is beloved. Despite being a lifelong Democrat, when he decided to get into politics there was no place for him on that bench. So he (astutely, to be sure) recognized there was a huge class of disaffected in the US that he could cultivate as followers. It just so happened that pro-life was a significant characteristic among that population of disaffected people so he pretended to be that so as to encourage their love for him. I doubt very much if he was ever sincerely pro-life. Now that he has legions of truly devoted followers from his initial target population who believe he can do no wrong and who aren’t going to abandon him no matter what, Trump is adopting postures that will endear him to new camps of followers, including moderates who are offended by rabid “Progressives,” but who nevertheless want to have the freedom to kill their inconvenient child should it come to that. Trump is down that road and will not be turning back.
Thomas, he can turn back if he loses his base, authentic Catholics, a minority who can become quite loud when agitated. You employ the traditional left-wing disparagement for conservatism that should appropriately be applied to Christianity, which is “reactionary.” It is honorable to react negatively to the evil of tyrannical and murderous vanities, inevitable among elites. In this, Trump is very authentic, despite his own vanities and shortsightedness.
The distorted Christianity that consumes Pope Francis, causing his blindness to the evils of global tyrannies, their false promises of social engineering, and the proper disposition for Christian reactionaries towards such evil, has led him to an animus towards Trump. I will not presume to know who will readjust their path to the moral clarity that Christian values require. The fact that the balance of the world’s short-term future is staked on such mystery between a former playboy president and a theologically unqualified pope is clearly a call for lots of prayer.
For the record, I agree with Mrs. Hess above, especially her second paragraph.
I also agree with Ryan T. Anderson that we need to restore a culture of chastity and marriage. (See above-referenced comment, especially second paragraph).
I do not like Trump, but to give the Devil his due, his position on abortion is in line with the Dobbs Decision. That is, abortion is an issue for the States. Given that Supreme Court Decision, I doubt that we will see a decision either way on a national level regarding abortion.
I suspect IVF will also be a decision for the States. The Federal Government should not be paying for it.
Like all modern presidents, he does not confine his use of the office to things he actually has any authority over. If telling people to “support our troops”, which is unenforceable and really none of his business, is acceptable behavior for a president, it’s not too much to expect him to tell people, “Don’t murder your kids.”
You are stating a misconception about Dobbs, which pointed out what everyone knew since Roe was decided, that it was wrongly decided. The Constitution provides no basis for the SCOTUS to overrule state courts on the issue. Nothing more. Federal legislation, independent of the states, is possible.
Well, the 10th Amendment might come into play, at least in principle.
Only, that ship sailed, crossed the Pacific, and was sunk by the Japanese off the coast of Malaysia decades ago. It’s hard to argue that speed limits and seat belt laws are somehow under the purview of the central government, but that abortion does not.
President Trump is not the enemy.
He seems to have done his best while in power to unmake legal abortion as the law of the land. But he is imperfect and not a miracle worker. So be it.
We will never legislate enough to end, entirely, the killing of the unborn. The end state we seek will come only through conversion of hearts. Let’s work toward that.
“President Trump is not the enemy.”
That is correct. He is an enemy. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
“The moral of this story please attend to very well:
Exactly who the devil is is often hard to tell.
He may be short and ugly or he may be fair and tall.
He may just be the man for whom you voted in the fall.”
Politics is downstream of culture. Said the Chinese Emperor when asked what he would do to save his nation: “I would restore the meaning of words.” That is, abortion is “fetal infanticide”…
And about other vocabulary from “health service providers” in the abortion industry, how about this comparison table in the “Third Reich and Contemporary Society” (William Brennan, The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution, St. Louis: Landmark Press, 1983, selections from Chart 6, and 100-102):
“I know of not a single case where anyone came out of the chambers alive” (Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess on the destructive capacity of Zyklon B gas, 1947) and “It never ever results in live births” (an experienced abortionist on the merits of dissection and extraction, 1981);
“the subjects were forced to undergo death-dealing experiments ‘without receiving anesthetics’” (Dachau freezing experiments, 1942) and “the fetuses are fully alive when we cut their heads off, but anesthetics are definitely unnecessary” (Fetal researcher Dr. Martti Kekomaki, 1980);
“no criticism was raised” (conference of German physicians to the Ravenbrueck death camp sulfanilamide experiments, Berlin, May 1943) and “no one ever raised an eyebrow” (meeting of American pediatricians to an experiment involving beheading of aborted babies, San Francisco, 1973); and
“what should we do with this garbage” (Treblinka, 1942) and “an aborted baby is just garbage” (fetal researcher Dr. Martti Kekomaki, 1980).
In Mein Kampf (1925) Adolf Hitler referred to Jews as “a parasite in the body of other peoples”; fifty years later, the year of Roe v. Wade, a radical feminist group branded the unborn as “a parasite within the mother’s body” (an early edition of Our Bodies, Ourselves: A Book By and For Women).
The coats are still white, except the Caduceus has replaced the Swastika. It was just a question of time and secular humanist enlightenment.
And a cowardly, watered down Catholic witness that joins the humanist chorus in ignoring the denial processes built into cultural accommodations.
Unless pro-lifers want to go back to the bad old days of having rabid pro-abortionist democrats in power, I suggest they tred lightly in expressing lack of support for Trump. Once Trump is out of office our hopes will likely rest with Vance. Republicans at least lean pro-life. Dems decidedly do NOT. Take the half a loaf that Trump managed to obtain during his last term and be grateful for it. Build on it by persuading the public to come to the pro-life side. The least intelligent thing to do would be to attack his position, which only gives his enemies ammunition. Get it?? Pro-lifers need to understand that we are NOT a Catholic country. This country offers religious freedom to all, and most of the nation is NOT Catholic.So you cannot expect them to accept Catholic rules for their lives. Indeed among Catholics I know, almost NONE supports a total abortion ban. Exceptions for rape and incest and the life of the mother is a standard and unexceptional public belief and even Catholics expect this to be accepted. Maybe with a lot of public outreach, alternatives can be proposed to mitigate the position of those who support abortion for “any time, anyplace”. Its not impossible some will be persuaded to the pro-life side. If you are suggesting that a 14 year old be made to carry to term the baby of her rapist, you will meet with abject failure and zero public support. From the public or the politicians.That ship has sailed.
So, “Shut up or else!” is the best argument you can make. That is a cry that must always be defied.
We almost lost this last election to a party that promotes the sexual transition of children, has promoted open borders where illegals in the millions deal liberally in the death drug fentanyl, gangs, rape, and in sex traffic rings,and has pushed for abortion to the day of birth (and some have advocated for AFTER birth).Who have no issue with grown men in girls bathrooms nor with physical males from pretending they are women for the purpose of competing on womens sport teams even if such means women will be injured.
Again, we did not win this election by a landslide.Too many of our people have been propagandized with outright lies about conservative positions and outright lies against Trump.And are uninformed about MANY issues. But thankfully we won. For now. We have a bare majority and little time to accomplish what must be done before the midterms, when the ruling party often LOSES seats. If you cannot see the value in what he has ALREADY done to make this country safer,and helped the pro-life movement with justice picks and verbal support, and how Trump is infinitely better person to lead us, I wont waste my breath trying to convince you.
Please note that I never told anyone to “shut up”. (But when talking takes you further from your goal it seems unwise.) Keep talking. Maybe the Republicans will lose the next time. Where I come from we call that “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” See how far it gets you. My guess is that you will simply lose ground on this issue rather than gain it.
Why do you take for granted the liberal canard that being pro-life is idiosyncratic to Catholicism? Do you deny a right to oppose mass murder to non-Catholics? I was a pro-life atheist for years prior to my religious conversion. And Catholic opposition is not a “rule.” Rules are for children. God given principles are for adults.
All the notable pro-lifers and the ones now being jailed for protest are majority Catholic. I hear crickets from our Protestant friends, who are almost completely secular on many issues at this point. Regarding sexual behavior and abortion, whether you call them rules to live by or principles (irrelevant to my point) only a small minority of Christians, even church going ones, observe church teachings in these areas anymore. And, far from being a liberal canard, the Catholic Church is by far the one most prominently still talking openly about the evils of abortion.Its part of the reason the church is attacked over and over again, whether by politicians, arsonists or groups like “Janes Revenge”.
Its a reality that to affect change you need to have political power. Period. We were voting for a politician, not a saint. Ironically, he will not be able to do all he would like precisely because , contrary to propaganda, he is NOT a dictator. That means compromise, hopefully temporary, is part of the picture, whether anyone likes it or not.
Since this is a Catholic website, we ought to concentrate here on what we as a Catholic Church can do to change the mindset of others around this abortion issue.
First, let’s begin with our co-religionists who are evenly divided on the issue of abortion. Let those of you who are exercised about this very grave matter float some ideas about how Catholics who are pro-abortion might be convicted otherwise. And then, when the vast majority of Catholics align their personal beliefs with the teaching of the Church on abortion, then we can set out on a program to convince others in our society to think similarly. I’ve seen practically nothing in the Catholic Church that even begins to approximate what I’ve suggested.
Some posters here are correct that the pregnancy issue must be addressed long before we got to the abortion stage. First, the church needs to begin gain to speak about Catholic morals on Sundays. This includes the clear teaching that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful. They have to stop pretending to be blind about young couples sleeping together or living together and then granting them a Catholic wedding. Increasingly the young dont appear to CARE if they are married in church, which is another issue that must be spoken about in a PUBLIC setting such as Sunday Mass. Its all well and good to talk about the most recent Gospel reading. But if we fail to pass along to the next generation a clear understanding of Catholic belief IN PRACTICE, what are we accomplishing?? A downturn of premarital sex and downturn of resulting pregnancies will also reduce the number of abortions. Its also time to talk up adoption as a real alternative to abortion.
There are already a number of facilities where women can go for pregnancy support such as supplies. I am not familiar with how they are funded or supported by the local parishes. Maybe make use of some of those empty convents to house pregnant moms in distressed circumstances.
Why doesn’t the Church focus on helping expectant mothers? Why don’t we talk more about helping expectant mothers instead of stopping abortion? I firmly believe that if people knew that Catholics especially bishops and priests are reaching out to help expectant mothers there would be fewer abortions. If you want to stop abortions there is a very practical step to take. Emphasize the pregnancy centers. It’s no coincidence that pregnancy centers are vandalized. Those who push abortions know very well that pregnancy centers are on the front line against abortion. They realize it better than the bishops do. That’s why they attack the pregnancy centers. Why don’t we have more of them and why don’t we make them better known?
Why don’t we just make it so murders and rapes and thefts never have to happen?
See the logic there? Because they’re evil assaults on human lives and dignity. So, too, is abortion. The Church DOES focus on helping women in need and has for a long time, far more than secular culture does, because the Church cares for the whole woman and her child, not just their material needs.
Our diocese bought a former abortion mill, blessed and exorcised it, and converted it into a free medical clinic that has a special focus on women in crisis pregnancies. As for pregnancy centers, Planned Parenthood does its utmost to interfere with them and their being listed in phone directories. God bless those centers that get established despite that interference.
God bless your diocese. May it establish a pregnancy center in every parish! And may that happen in every diocese with the bishop and pastors announcing their presence at every Mass!
Trump is not going to sign a national abortion ban. Indeed, he cannot as the Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision made abortion a state issue. Perhaps the focus should be on state legislatures rather than Trump?
William – states certainly have a (practical) responsibility to work on this, but as “life” is an inalienable right which is self-evident and, in accord with the natural law, a pretext for any just constitution, national leaders should not be allowed to sit back claiming “back to the states” as a cogent position.
Our Godless country is the problem not Trump. Also that approximately 50% of Catholics think abortion, ivf, and contraception is OK is really what the focus should be. How are you going to hold Trump to a standard that many of our own don’t believe in?
Clean up the Church to clean up the world.
JT: Precisely. Let’s have a moral reform of Catholics before we make comments like this: “Pro-lifers must resist Trump on abortion and IVF” as if Catholics are already travelling the moral high road.
Say what? I guess just about all Catholics should refrain from speaking out on any moral issues since we are not travelling the moral high road per Deacon Peitler. Only after we embark on the recommended moral reform by Deacon Peitler will we be qualified to speak out on moral issues. Until then, Catholics, keep your mouths shut and pens dry, and do not resist Trump or anyone else on abortion or IVF or any other moral issue. Since Catholic World Report often carries articles with a moral perspective written by morally flawed Catholics, the magazine should also shut down until the deacon’s moral reform is completely accomplished.
Tom Flanders: You certainly know how to pervert the things said by those with whom you have political differences. I said NOTHING about Catholics not weighing in on moral issues until or unless they have their own moral house in order. I DID say that when it comes to moral issues, the Church needs first to purify itself before preaching morality to the larger segment of society that espouses immoral ideas and practices. There are signicant numbers of Catholics not in alignment with Church teaching on abortion, IVF, contraception, homosexual lifestyles, etc.
My apologies, Deacon Peitler. I was under the impression that you wrote the following that was not perverted by me despite your false assertion that does not possess or gain any truth by the use of capital letters for a few words:
“Let’s have a moral reform of Catholics before we make comments like this: ‘Pro-lifers must resist Trump on abortion and IVF’ as if Catholics are already travelling the moral high road.”
Also, I did not write or express any political differences with anybody in my statement, so this is just a strange projection on your part.
And now you write “that when it comes to moral issues, the Church needs first to purify itself before preaching morality to the larger segment of society that espouses immoral ideas and practices.”
Say what? You have now doubled down on promoting an absurd standard of purity for the Church before preaching morality, and your references to significant numbers of Catholics not in alignment with Church teaching is completely irrelevant to your larger point about the Church itself
My previous comment and this one are right on target in calling out your impossible standard of moral purity that the Church and individual Catholics must achieve “before preaching morality to the larger segment of society that espouses immoral ideas and practices.”
Trump is clearly the lesser “evil” compared to Harris. But we have to bring the Gospel of Life to the local governments and states. Trump took off the shackles of Roe. Also since Roe a generation of Republican Politcos where able to LIE to us and pretend they are Pro Life Absolutists but Gosh darn it..if only Roe wasn’t around?
Well Trump has removed that pretense and facade.
Now we roll up our sleeves and do the real work.
Cheers.
PS Feser is cool and I still SO STOKED Trump is back.
I would take your advice about “resisting” Trump, however, it appears that Trump has simply followed the direction set by de facto pro-choice Cardinals Cupich, McElroy and Tobin (et al), along with at least Bishop Stowe and significant segment of the USCCB. That’s where the problem is if you are a pro-life Catholic. Perhaps a column about resisting those hierarchs would add a bit of credibility to your counsel to resist Trump.
There is plenty to criticize about these three prelates (and we have, at times, at CWR), but how, exactly, are they or the USCCB pro-abortion or pro-IVF?
We might as well disown Constantine who legalized the Catholic Faith within the Roman Empire as it also drifted toward the sunset–because he murdered his own son and then his wife. By one account the son because his wife accused the son of attempted incest, and his wife because he then found that it was a lie. All this as part of endless family maneuvering for positions of power.
We are reminded, here, that Christ looked deeply into this confoluted swamp and chose, freely, to take ALL of it upon himself. Reason for real hope as a theological virtue, in a fallen and imperfect world, more than therapeutic optimism.
But, as the 1968 Democrat VP candidate Hubert Humphrey famously said, “never give up, never give in.”
that’s what Trump basically said as they picked him up after being shot
Carl, jpfhays said a “significant segment.” On paper, the position of our Bishops is pro-life. And on paper, the vast majority of Republicans until Trump have campaigned on a pro-life platform. (At least Trump is up front about his latest betrayal of a “loser.”)
In the hidden trenches of the pro-life legislative process in Austin, the only Texas Bishop that I trusted was Bishop Strickland. Even if Bishop Strickland overreached in his public support of pro-life, at least he fought beside us. (Again, so many Protestant Pastors put us to shame!). Bishop Strickland is now a moral tale, having been deposed as a tall poppy for not being a “team player” at the Texas Conference. Apparently , his outspoken support of life provided an embarrassing contrast.
Think back to the pro-life legislative harvest under Governor Perry. No serious pro-life leader in Texas ever hoped that the team player Bishop of Dallas (now Cardinal) Farrell would actually have our back when no one was looking. In fairness, perhaps Bishop Farrell did not know what RINOs did to kill our bills behind closed doors? After all, the “poor man” missed what McCarrick did as his long-time roommate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DcnV-R2im0
“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:16-18)
Pro-lifers must resist Trump on abortion and IVF? To some extent that is true, but the real burden is upon the Church to: 1] Enlist the Protestant churches into this battle and 2] To convey in compelling understandable and convincing terms the core issue in regard to this moral question. We have fallen back upon the sentimentalism in this fight. And 3] The call to moral living has essentially been abandoned by the spectrum of Christian congregation and the Churches. We have allowed ourselves to be muted by the soft psychological sciences and accusations of hypocrisy in our own institutional practices and living.
Where is our faith?
James, check out THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM:
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
Jesus just gave us a fine wine from water, why complain that it’s not Merlot.
I remember when the duplicitous congressional leaders McConnell and McCarthy said after the Capitol riot, that “Trump is morally and directly responsible for the insurrection. That started the BIG LIE and a long painful and expensive nightmare for the nation. Ironically, both have said the voted for Trump.
The brand of RINO has no consequences. My GOP, the party of Lincoln, has been blatantly overtaken by the autocratic oligarchy of Trump’s MAGA cult. Sane Republicans beware! Some, but not all of the massive and startling events.
Trump’s campaign stops have revealed a serious decline in his mental acuity. He will carry the nuclear codes. If he becomes ill and is unable to carry out his duties, the inexperienced and ill-equipped, (cat women dictator), Vance will assume the Oval Office. If Vance resigns because of the immense task, duplicitous House Speaker Johnson, a Trump extreme Evangelist lieutenant Speaker Johnson is next in line.
He has threatened the DOD and DOJ with a purge exposing our country to foreign enemies. He confirmed that he intends to eliminate the Education Department that strengthens the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual. Mind blowing! Yesterday he selected his NEW Education Secretary Linda McMahon. WOW! See the mission of the DE.
https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/mission-of-the-us-department-of-education#:~:text=ED%27s%20mission%20is%20to%20promote%20student%20achievement%20and,by%20fostering%20educational%20excellence%20and%20ensuring%20equal%20access.
Trump committed treason at least four times.
He tried to overthrow the government by inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.
At a summit in Helsinki with Putin in 2018 he defied his intelligence experts on Russian meddling in our national elections, saying “I have President Putin here and he said they did not”
He blatently stole the sensitive Archived documents, sent them to a Mar A Lago bathroom, and refused to return them.
Invited Russian Ambassador Lavrov to the WH and showed him sensitive military documents.
Trump is power hungry. He said he would be a dictator on day one. Said he will pardon the “hostages”, convicted Capitol invaders and maybe himself. “I am your retribution”. He also said that he will call out the military to suppress peaceful demonstrations.
Amazingly, For the first time, we elected a convicted felon apparently without any fear for the Republic.
Trump has avoided accountability for his immoral and criminal acts. Decisions by his Supreme Court helped ensure their devotion. Passed the abortion decision to the states causing confusion and havoc. Then, giving him absolute immunity confusing the lower courts and halting the criminal cases before he assumes office.
Because Trump is now our president we must respect the office, but challenge his misdeeds.
Trump hangs out and has an ever deepening relationship with Elon Musk. Something like 9 out of 12 of Elon Musk’s children were conceived via IVF. Elon Musk is full on pro-eugenics.
People who support Trump, are essentially supporting Elon Musk. Which means they see no problem with IVF and likely approved of eugenics themselves.
Your unhinged posts put the “deranged” in Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s simply not normal to allow someone to rent space in your head like this. Elections have consequences. Get over it. Trump is the next president. Quit lying and slandering. That’s sin.
Nothing they said was a lie. You can easily check Elon’s track record re: IVF and eugenics. He has president Trumps ear now. So much so he has earned the moniker ‘First Buddy’
Like the baker who bakes a cake for a gay wedding is committing a sin by doing so. Supporting Trump who is now firmly in the pro-IVF and eugenics camp with Elon is winning in the same way the as baler who bakes a cake for a gay wedding.
The election is over. Your side lost.
And you are pro-eugenics. You haven’t even bothered to deny that fact.
Oh my goodness Mr. Morgan. This can’t be good for your health.
When Trump said that more time is needed than six weeks (for permitting abortions), what he meant was “more time than six weeks is needed to get me elected”. Trump is not a conservative; he is a populist, and populism is the new movement of the new Republican party, while his children are social liberals riding the populist wave. The question now is: what magazine or news outlet or politician is going to become prominent enough to contrast Trumpism with true conservatism in a substantial and assertive way? Trump is good for the country now, but pro-lifers need to be aware that if daughter Lara were to become a senator (say, in Florida) the tentacles will spread into the once political vehicle of the pro-life movement and the pro-life (political) cause will be seriously diminished even more than it has been in this election cycle. Donald Trump right now is untouchable, but the conservatives need to find, support, and disseminate an alternative for whomever Trump chooses as his heir. We can wait around for Vance to have a metanoia, but it is unlikely if he sticks close to populism for the next four years.
Let me understand this, the Catholic Church can’t get its women to stop killing their babies at the same rate as pagans so we pass it off to the nanny state and expect them to take care of the problem? I doubt that’s going to happen.
Yes, unfortunately. It’s human nature to pass off responsibility and look to the government to do what we should be doing at the grassroots level.
Clearly you lack all understanding in this matter.
First of all, we who are Catholics and pro-life can never thank President Trump enough for nominating and supporting the confirmation of three constitutional Supreme Court Justices – against great opposition – who, after 50 years of never-ending promises and failures by supposedly “pro-life” legislators, helped the US Supreme Court rule in favor to reverse Roe v. Wade at the federal level and return this central issue to the state level and the will of the people in all 50 states. THANK YOU, DONALD TRUMP! TRUMP PLEDGED HE WOULD DO IT AND HE DID! Then, at the risk of his own life and treasure, and that of his entire family, he never gave up and he defeated the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in US history. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP! DIVORCE, BIRTH CONTROL, ABORTION, AND IVF are all rightly condemned by the Catholic Church and many other religious faiths. It is up to us, now, to elect good and moral leaders… and to actually lead by example and even run for office!!
Democrats are 100% in favor of IVF and 100% opposed to any restrictions of regulations whatsoever at the state level, while Republicans -under the leadership of President Trump- are in favor of allowing IVF but with strict restrictions, regulations, AND religious freedom exemptions! Even Pope Benedict and the Italians Bishops back in 2005 (google it: there are 4 separate articles in the NY Times in May and June of 2005) got involved in Italy’s legislation and fully supported an IVF bill with strict IVF regulations rather than support a bill that would PROHIBIT ANY IVF RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER – like the Democrats! Now it is our turn to support IVF legislation that will protect human embryos from harm in IVF clinics. It can be done! Germany and Italy have both done it: so can we if we want to!
Wake up, pro-lifers! Trump deserves our gratitude and our support for all that he has done.
I stand by what I’ve written. Polls suggest that Catholics support an abortion option on par with that of the general populace. It is duplicitous for Catholics to criticize Trump’s abortion stand while so many of our co-religionists agree with his positions on abortion and IVF. We should first evangelize those within our own Church before seeking to convert the hearts of others if we want credibility. I have a friend whose four children all attended Catholic universities. One attended Notre Dame and the other Catholic University of America. Both conceived children using IVF.
If this were 1850 and half of Catholics in the USA owned slaves, would we have much credibility in the minds of other slave owners to preach to them as Catholics about the evil of owning slaves? Doubtful. I would guess that if Lincoln owned slaves, he’d first have to free his own slaves before trying to emancipate the slaves owned by others. Let’s be consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches and how much its adherents subscribe to her teachings.
And now you triple down on your impossible, irrational standard of moral impeccability before evangelizing others, plus your analogies are not even close to being on point. Very sad.
DcnPeitler: “It is duplicitous for Catholics to criticize Trump’s abortion stand while so many of our co-religionists agree with his positions on abortion and IVF. We should first evangelize those within our own Church before seeking to convert the hearts of others if we want credibility.”
In simple terms, many Catholics are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, so we can evangelize our own who have fallen astray, and lo and behold, we can also evangelize others as well. It’s a miracle.
Let’s try an illustrative dialogue for more insights:
Protestant: Are you a Catholic who knows at least your Church’s basic teachings on morality involving issues like abortion?
Catholic: Yes.
Protestant: Could you explain to me why the Catholic Church is opposed to things like abortion and IVF, and why it is wrong for anyone to promote such things?
Catholic: I could do this, but Deacon Peitler has pontificated that all Catholics should not do this kind of evangelizing because too many Catholics don’t adhere to the Church’s teachings, so we need to put all our time and efforts into first evangelizing our fellow Catholics before we even dare to evangelize anyone else. I am very sorry because I really could help you, but Deacon Peitler says it would be wrong to do so until I help only my fellow Catholics better understand and accept Church teaching.
Protestant: Do you really have to follow the advice of Deacon Peitler?
Catholic: You know what? I don’t have to follow his advice, thank God, and come to think of it, I’d rather obey God than any man, and God requires that I help others even though I am a sinner and many of my fellow Catholics have fallen astray. I will help my fellow Catholics, and now I will also help you better understand Catholic teaching.
The Catholic spent some time evangelizing and educating the Protestant who then remarked:
Protestant: Thank you for ignoring Deacon Peitler in order to better serve God and help me better understand Catholic teaching on abortion and IVF. Where can I find more information on your Church, including the possibility of joining it?
I stand by what I wrote, Flanders. Evangelize the hearts of Catholics before setting out to evangelize others. In addition, sarcasm is not an argument. Get back to me when Catholics truly believe and practice what the Catholic Church teaches. In the meantime, it seems like you have a lot of work to do within the Church. Now, do it.
If I may, I would like to historically summarize the downward, disruptive, and deconstructive trajectory of international legislation concerning natural law, whose primary cornerstone is the right to life, followed by monogamous marriage, and finally the right to educational freedom.
In the Middle Ages, it was taken for granted that rulers recognized themselves as bound by divine law. While a ruler could be unjust and commit abuses, the binding authority of God’s law over human society was not contested. The humanist turn in the 15th century, however, moved in the opposite direction. Building on a process that had begun in the previous century, the doctrines of Marsilius of Padua (13th century) paved the way for the transition from traditional monarchies—where kings acknowledged the authority of moral law and natural law above them—to absolute monarchies, where the king was “solutus ab,” freed from any authority higher than himself.
The pagan principle of Ulpian (170–228) returned to prominence: *”Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem”*—what pleases the prince has the force of law.
When the prince frees himself from the upper limit of natural law, he simultaneously discards the lower limit constituted by the personal rights of his subjects. The abandonment of natural law and the shift to absolutism does not lead to greater liberty but to less freedom.
Significant changes occurred in laws concerning the right to life, a cornerstone of natural law, when the “right” to new rights was proclaimed. This strategic shift recently manifested in legislative interventions beyond abortion. For example, consider the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, thus obliging states to recognize same-sex marriage. Or take France’s “Taubira” law on “marriage for all,” the Italian “Cirinnà” law of 2016, and the 2017 law on advance healthcare directives (DAT), which do not provide for conscientious objection by mayors or medical professionals.
In Italy, there was also the 2014 Constitutional Court ruling on artificial insemination, which proclaimed a constitutional right for couples to have a child. In all these cases, a threshold was crossed: the state not only tolerates behavior contrary to life but embraces and enforces it. If same-sex relationships enjoy public recognition and thus contribute to the common good, the state must teach them in schools, just as it teaches equality in dignity for all individuals as part of anti-racism efforts.
This tolerance of evil in legislation leads to two additional features that highlight the danger of the situation: the systematic and institutional character of laws against life. In Europe, it is often international courts of justice that prosecute member states’ legal systems when they lack legislation against life. This international movement against life has become a “machine,” an automatism that, operating inertially through bureaucratic procedures, permeates public administration in a uniform manner.
The first point to focus on is the long process by which political and legal power emancipated itself from substantive content, adopting a stance of “neutrality” toward it. This is the long secularization process in our legal civilization, which distinguished jurists like Carl Schmitt and Wolfgang Böckenförde have diagnosed well.
The juridical-political perspective of Thomas Hobbes underpins all forms of “legal positivism.” The initial error of modern political thought was to base the foundations of the political community on contractual consensus, as Hobbes did. The Leviathan, arising beyond the anarchic social contracts of individuals, constitutes itself not through agreement but above it, making it something superior: a god on earth. Since Descartes had declared that man is an “intellect in a machine,” Hobbes’s Leviathan is the great man that coincides with the great machine.
Thus arises the neutrality of the state with respect to substantive content. If the state is a great machine, then it is a technical-neutral instrument, whose value lies in being a well-functioning machine, independent of any aims or political convictions. It assumes neutrality concerning values and truth, akin to a technical instrument.
Schmitt distinguishes between “tolerance” and “neutralization”: in the former, the state tolerates evil because it feels invested in the good; in the latter, the state is neutral toward both good and evil. In neutrality, *auctoritas* and *potestas* coincide.
Are not current laws against life predicated on this conception of power and law? Even today, we encounter a “neutral” state, a machine as effective as it is formal and purely procedural.
We must not overlook the anthropological vision underlying the modern political and legal thought of Hobbes and Hegel, akin to Luther’s, which later influenced liberalism. Humans are compelled to invent the Leviathan due to the desperate state they find themselves in within the state of nature (*“Homo homini lupus”*), not only due to religious wars (which predate Luther, reaching back to John Wycliffe, who denied the real presence in the Eucharist and reduced it to a mere symbol, anticipating the Protestant Reformation. He was condemned posthumously in 1415 by the Council of Constance, alongside Jan Hus, who held similar views. The armed struggle against the Hussites dominated much of the 15th century).
Only a desperate man could entrust himself to a power that is “God, man, animal, and machine.” Despairing of achieving social peace, humans entrust its realization not to a “Defensor pacis,” as Marsilius of Padua still envisioned in the 14th century—although his work initiated the long process of the state’s *reductio ad unum*—but to a “Creator pacis”: the Leviathan, the God-State.
With Hobbes’s state-machine, the principle of “neutrality” is established with clarity and tragedy: the state “has its order within itself and not outside itself.” It can demand unconditional obedience and reject conscientious objection, as mentioned earlier.
The neutrality of the state concerning content and truth, so firmly established by Hobbes—and so plastically expressed in the synthesis of God, man, animal, and machine—also underpins the liberal constitutional and parliamentary state of the 19th century, commonly called the “rule of law.” Max Weber aptly noted that in this context, legality coincides with legitimacy. The bourgeois rule-of-law state is often seen as opposing Hobbes’s Leviathan, but it is instead its continuation!
When the state’s will was identified with the people’s will, every law resulting from popular will expressed through Parliament gained authority and dignity as deriving from its relationship with the law. The principle of “neutrality” founded by Hobbes continued and evolved within the constitutional and democratic state, where law, legality, and justice became procedural forms, indifferent and available to any content. The neutrality between justice and injustice enables the concept of the “tyrant” to appear even in the bourgeois rule-of-law state.
A tyrant is someone who has gained power illegally or, having gained it legally, exercises it illegally. A majority, however, fits neither category and therefore cannot be tyrannical. Yet this is precisely the worst tyranny: the majority “will never commit injustice but will transform every action into law and legality.” Even modern liberal democracies fall under the category of Leviathan.
Carl Schmitt explains well how politics and law have arrived at this “neutrality” concerning truth and content. However, this stage has now been surpassed: the law no longer places itself as neutral with respect to nature but serves the purpose of opposing nature. Today, the state mandates principles contrary to natural ones. What is non-negotiable today is the right to abortion, the right to marriage for all, or the right to a child through artificial insemination. The legislation against life now seeks to reshape human nature and eradicate God’s presence from the world. In secularization, there is thus a coherent and unstoppable drive that, without the restraining action of a *Kathecon*, tends toward the final solution.
We must recognize that the phase of “neutrality” preludes the subsequent phase of systematic and institutionalized evil. Political thought initially dispenses with God and then fights to eliminate Him; it initially dispenses with nature and then fights to eradicate and reshape it.
One often assumes that positivism, including legal positivism (Kelsen), exemplifies neutrality. However, once reason—here, juridical reason—detaches from religion, it cannot help but become anti-religious. Secularization of reason, once separated from its religious foundation, inevitably proceeds to a continuous corrosion of meaning, bringing misfortune (Ratzinger).
The positivist view of nature, as Ratzinger observes, not only fails to recognize in nature a discourse on justice capable of legitimizing legality but even lays the groundwork for reshaping nature, including human nature. The positivist position is not one of neutrality but one of counter-nature, a violation of nature that the state adopts and actively promotes.
The call is to return fully to nature as the expression of a moral natural law and natural rights. In his address to the Bundestag, Benedict XVI clarified that “Christianity has never imposed on the state and society a revealed law, nor a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law, referring to the harmony between objective and subjective reason, a harmony that presupposes both spheres to be grounded in the creative Reason of God.”
It is not sufficient to base natural law on the hypothesis of a Creator God (*etsi Deus daretur*). Rather, through the recognition of the existence of natural law, it is possible to recover its transcendent foundation in the Creator God, as a guarantee of the very secularity of natural law. Without this foundation, even natural law is conceived as neutral and thus incapable of enduring, always prone to manipulation by counter-nature.
The Church, in the final analysis, does not ask that the “prince” be subject to the clergy but that he be subject to truth and natural law, which are grounded in God.
A post of this length is unnecessary and inappropriate. What is your point here? How specifically is any of this related to the actual content and arguments of the article?
Paolo: you don’t have far to go to work this into a full-length dissertation or even a publishable text on the topic.
C. S. Lewis said that he wrote the books he wished someone else would write, but they didn’t, so he did. I feel the same way, and so I write in answer to the need, often expressed by me, for a single article summarizing the essential reasons for the Church’s position against juridical positivism, the idea that is destroying our society namely that morality and law is exclusively subjective and man-made.
Lewis and Peter Kreeft do a better job of that in their masterpieces, “The Abolition of Man” and, “A Refutation of Moral Relativism”.
Though I’m barely a speck compared to them, I couldn’t help but bumble along like a clumsy kid trying to mimic his dad. My apologies, Deacon Edward and Athanasius, for the mess I’ve made!
No problem paolo. Some just can’t help themselves.