It was an electric moment. After a three year build up that featured two vice-presidential visits, hitherto unprecedented, and one live video address, also unprecedented, Donald Trump did what no sitting American president had done before: he attended the March for Life and gave a speech to the crowd. The timing was not an accident: it was 2020, and Trump was courting pro-lifers in his re-election bid. Yet both his actions and his words spoke loudly to pro-lifers who, long frustrated at their second-class status in national politics, rejoiced at finally having a political champion.
“We’re here for a very simple reason,” Trump began. “To defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential.” He then saluted pro-lifers who made the annual trip for 47 years “to stand for life. And today, as President of the United States, I am truly proud to stand with you.”
Five years later, on the eve of Trump’s second inauguration and the 52nd March for Life, pro-lifers should issue their former champion a friendly challenge: “Do you still stand with us, Mr. President?”
Much has been written, including at length by Edward Feser on this page here and here, about Trump’s pro-choice messaging in his re-election campaign. There is no need to repeat those points here. Suffice it to say that, in 2024, Trump ran from pro-lifers rather than stood with them.
Overlooked in the focus on Trump has been a change in focus of the pro-life movement and the March for Life in particular. Since the November 2024 election, which also featured ten state referenda on abortion, with pro-lifers narrowly winning just three, pro-life leaders have been silent about proposing federal legislation to limit abortion—even with a Republican president, 53 Republican seats in the Senate, and a slim five seat Republican majority in the House. The dual reality of an unwelcoming president and a populace strongly in favor of abortion in early pregnancy seems to have dampened pro-life resolve for seeking votes on the national political front.
The former is noteworthy. Are pro-lifers who once cheered Trump now intimated by him—at least enough not to hold him accountable to his March for Life promises? In that speech he boldly declared of himself: “Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.”
Since the election, instead of asking Trump how he will mount his defense of the unborn, conversation on the federal level has focused on preserving the Hyde Amendment prohibition of using government money for abortions, overturning the Mexico City policy that finances abortion abroad, and undoing Biden-administration regulations that facilitated abortion. Yet these are all regular features of an incoming Republican administration. There is nothing new or exciting here—and certainly nothing new to gain ground nationally in this new situation: the first Republican administration after the fall of Roe.
This year’s March for Life’s organization and route is telling. Formerly, the March terminated at the Supreme Court building in protest of Roe. In the two years since Roe was overturned, the March courageously charted a new route to reflect the new status: the March veered toward the Capitol building to send a message to Congress to protect unborn life with federal laws. And this with a sitting Democratic president and Democratic control of the Senate. The insurmountable odds that situation presented did not dampen pro-life fervor.
This winter, by contrast, the March route was listed as “to be determined” for some time. Only in the second week of January was it posted: a zig-zag around Congress to the Supreme Court building. Under the website’s subheading “Why will we continue to march?” federal legislation restricting abortion is not mentioned among the desiderata.
Will Trump’s campaign-expressed will to leave abortion entirely to the states—and thus remove it from national politics—win the day, despite what he told marchers five years ago? The Wall Street Journal editorial page hopes so. Without abortion to drag the GOP down, it argued, Republicans can focus on winning federal elections. The Trump-Vance team seem to have taken this cue. If pro-lifers allow Trump to take the lead on pro-life priorities, their cause may disappear from national politics in ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney’s teams could only have dreamed of. Then the unborn will have no defenders in the White House for the foreseeable future, Republican or otherwise.
The opposite has to happen: pro-lifers have to press their case before Trump as they did in his first term, and remind him of his pledges at the 2020 March for Life. And they ought not back down. In 1975, Nellie Gray, the intrepid founder of the March, organized monthly pickets outside the White House to protest First Lady Betty Ford’s enthusiastic endorsement of Roe. Fifty years later, with a vacillating president and now a first lady who recently wrote passionately in support of a “woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty…to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes,” do today’s pro-lifers have Nellie Gray’s determination to stand down their president, and his wife, on the need to protect human life?
Of course, pro-lifers must press their case prudently, mindful that the American electorate overwhelmingly supports first trimester abortion.
But prudence does not mean surrender to the status quo of state choice. In the campaign, both Trump and Vance adopted a “state relativism” approach: what one state decides on abortion may not be right for another. They sounded as if they were equating abortion, a moral question that concerns life or death for innocents, with mundane procedural items like drivers’ licenses and zoning laws. To acquiesce to “state relativism” smacks of the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which was a moral compromise that, in hindsight, cries out to Heaven.
Prudent steps forward include finding a winning approach to abortion limits and advocating it on the national level with the proper phrasing. (As a wise old priest once taught me, “He who wins the language wars wins the culture wars.”) Nebraska’s Initiative 434 prohibiting abortion in the second and third trimesters, the only ballot referendum that pro-lifers have won handily, 55-45, provides a model. From it I propose this pro-life talking point for Trump’s second term: “We want to pass a federal law protecting babies from abortion in the second and third trimesters, except in medical emergencies and for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. These children have beating hearts, functioning brains, and can feel pain. Their lives deserve protection like all other human beings. It is our responsibility as government officials to protect the most vulnerable among us, and babies in the womb need our help.”
Wording is crucial. Since Roe fell, as I have written here before, public conversation about abortion has been conducted on pro-abortion turf using pro-abortion terminology. Pro-lifers have to argue on their turf to win the public. We are not “banning abortion.” We are “protecting babies from abortion in the second and third trimesters.” The former repels the average voter; the latter appeals to him. Pro-lifers can then capture the public’s moral imagination with its vocabulary: heartbeat, human being, protect life. These words contribute to building a culture of life.
This pitch is not very different from what Trump told pro-lifers in his 2020 speech at the March—but never did. “I’ve called on Congress to defend the dignity of life and to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in their mother’s womb.”
A similar rhetorical offensive will help fight the other looming federal battle, one that Trump cannot duck: prohibiting doctors in one state from proscribing abortion pills for women in states where abortion is illegal. This battle will eventually involve all three branches of the federal government. Pro-life messaging should frame abortion-dispensing doctors as the malefactors. To wit, I propose a first draft: “Doctors are supposed to promote healing, not harm. Any doctor who violates a state law promulgated to protect women and to protect babies will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
The language of protecting women and babies is directed to sway the political center on abortion—the place where Trump resides. To advance this position more broadly, and to win back the president to the pro-life side, we can repeat his own words back to him and to the world:
• “All of us here understand an eternal truth: every child is a precious and sacred gift from God.”
• “When we see an image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation.”
• “One life changes the world.”
• “Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting. Every human life—born and unborn—is made in the holy image of almighty God.”
Mr. President, do you still believe your own beautiful words? If so, let’s start working together to make them a cultural and political reality in your second term. Please use your powerful influence to direct the national conversation towards protecting life in the culture and in the law. We have so much work to do.
If not, then pro-lifers will push back, immediately and forcefully. And the first push can be opposing the nomination of long-time abortion supporter Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which directs federal abortion policy.
“We all know how to win,” Trump proclaimed in his March for Life speech. The unborn will only win if their president has the courage to strongly defend them as he once promised. Pro-lifers have to do their part to make sure the president’s promises were not just empty words.
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.
Politicians only give the Pro-life movement lip service. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, address the women who makes the decision to have the abortion. Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the rooftops—-share the “Teachings of Christ”. The Federal government is not part of God’s plan.
We have laws and statutes on the books for a reason Mr. Gerald. In a perfect world that would be unnecessary and so would government. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
We will have better success making a better society if we follow Christ’s instruction to profess the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” to the ends of the world.
This is very true. There are many good laws in this land, but laws don’t stop people who are determined to “do it anyway.” Sadly, even if abortion is made illegal and punishable, many “good” people will disobey the law and do it anyway, especially if the celebrity “influencers” that so many people admire say it’s OK, it’s your right to do this thing.” Laws don’t stop “good” people from driving under the influence of alcohol (“I’m not drunk!”) or driving 45 in a 30 MPH zone (“But no one was around!”) or allowing a vicious dog to be unrestrained outdoors (our city just saw a woman killed by 3 unleashed dogs who attacked her when she stepped into her backyard.) We need to evangelize and lead people, especially children and teens, to the Way, the Truth, and the LIFE–Jesus Christ, Who will convict them of their sin, forgive them, and make them new.
Making a law does not, of itself, ensure that everyone follows the law.
But there are two effects of enforcing laws: first, those inclined to break that particular law will be unable to do so while serving time for it. Second, those who do not like the idea of serving time for it become somewhat less likely to break the law.
There are reasons why so many more unborn people are murdered, than born people. Part of it is the protection of the law. If you truly think the law does nothing worthwhile and has no deterrent or preventative effect, feel free to advocate for the removal of the laws against murder of born people.
For myself, I’ve noticed that even mostly decent people tend to behave better when their own skin is on the line. Having a bad day might lead to cursing at a cashier or another driver… but not their boss.
This article is a little inaccurate. Trump was the first president to address the March for Life, in 2018 (via video) at his very first opportunity as a new president, not in 2020 as the article states. Insinuating that he only (cynically) addressed them personally in 2020 in an attempt to gain political advantage is not fair or honest.
Trump delivered where no previous Republican ever had – he got Roe overturned, which was one of our major goals. What did he gain in return? We all know Trump didn’t start out as some pro-life ideologue, as much as that would have been great. He took up our standard, and for that he was stabbed in the back by many Republican careerist politicians and pundits. The fact that he has somewhat distanced himself from our cause is disappointing – but – you must admit, under his political circumstances – understandable. The *political* question worth asking is: what will we do for Trump if he resumes/continues our pro-life agenda? Will he get support, or more inconsistent (at best) or disloyal (at worst) treatment?
One of the problems with “pro-life” laws and Republicans vs. Democrats is the historic difference between the two parties. The Republican Party has long stood for “limited government”, holding a belief that American citizens should be free to live life the way they choose and not allowing the government to interfere with everyday life, but instead, only making laws that are necessary to keep the peace and protect citizens. Democrats have long stood for “big government” that gets involved with every citizen and makes laws that effect every aspect of the citizens’ lives, including laws that give a woman the freedom to have an abortion.
Asking Republicans to support making abortion illegal actually goes against the basic philosophy of “limited government” that the Republican Party has traditionally promoted. Asking Democrats to make abortion illegal would make more sense as they profess a desire to help “the little man”, but most Democrats, including the educated ones, refuse to recognize the humanity of the embryo, fetus and even the formed baby while in the woman’s womb.
The denial of the science of human genetics and development is understandable, considering how many of us (even Christians, including me!) deny the needs of our bodies for a healthy lifestyle and diet, and eat junk, drink too much alcohol, and don’t exercise, go to the doctor regularly, or even take the meds that are prescribed for us! We SAY we “believe in science,” but we don’t live like it if it’s unpleasant or inconvenient for us.
What’s needed, IMO, is for the medical and science community to step up and state that, based on the science of genetics, the fertilized egg, the embryo, the fetus, and the baby in the womb have all the genetic material of a human being and therefore, should be recognized as a human being and protected from harm during the time that they are incubating in the womb.
This time in history would be a good time for scientists (including health care professionals) to speak up, as the population in the U.S. is very low and we don’t have enough people to do the work that needs to be done in the U.S.! However, after the debacle of “COVID-19” that resulted in a lack of trust of medical science, I don’t think all Americans trust the medical and science communities to tell the truth. (That’s one reason we all feel OK with eating hot dogs and Cheetoes and drinking Mountain Dew for lunch!)
Christians DO speak up–but even many Christian communities have rejected the truth about human development in the womb. And tragically, many Americans distrust “Christians” and “churches” because of the many cases of sexual and other abuse that have occurred at the hands of ministers and priests, and because of the financial fraud that has happened in many of the megachurches, where pastors have lived like kings while continuing to appeal to their congregation for more sacrificial giving of money.
Those of us who call ourselves “pro-life” are left with the options of praying and asking God to intervene and also working and/or donating funds for pro-life organizations that teach women that she is carrying a human being in her womb.
God help us all through these dark times. And God help President Trump to do what’s right. And God help the science community to speak the truth.
I’m not diagreeing with the suggestion to evangelize (and not to “challenge”) President Trump regarding the truth about killing babies in their mothers wombs.
But, here’s a suggestion: how about starting with the CATHOLIC POLITICIANS first. You know, the Biden’s, Pelosi’s, the Tim Kaine’s, etc who abound and who support abortion. We know who they are and their bishops remain silent.
Secondly, if we Catholics feel so strongly about abortion (and polls suggest we don’t), then the bishops ought to promulgate this message to all pregant woman throughout the country: “If you’re pregnant and don’t know where to turn, contact ANY Catholic parish and we will help you with housing, healthcare, medical and financial assistance for you and your baby.”
Thank you; if there are any younger people of faith reading this please take this idea and run with it, in the spirit of Mother Theresa’s energy and vision. You will be helped along the way, but may, in modern secular parlance, encounter severe headwinds.
We cannot fight state elections where immature college students cast the deciding ballots in favor of murder, but we can enable life one soul at a time.
Enabling adoption is very important part of this as well.
There is a new pro-life initiative that I hope will become better known: Contemplatives For Life. You can learn about it here: https://seekingthefaceofgod.org/contemplatives-for-life/
Nice try for trying to put the elimination of abortion in Trumps lap. Politics is upscale from culture. We do not live in a dictatorship. Trump can only do so much, if he came out with a program of passing a law making it a crime he would not have been elected. You know that and so does everyone.
Nowhere in the article does it put the burden on the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests to step out, and I mean really step out and do something. Like have a massive saying of the Rosary in front of every abortion center/clinic in the country. The demonstrations that do occur are mostly one time events. The daily work against abortion is done by a few committed prolife Catholics, willing to put themselves on the line. It is a terribly sad fact that very and I mean very few bishops, priests etc will even give a sermon denouncing abortion. They may have a sermon covering the importance of life, but ignore the elephant in the room – Abortion.
So instead of going after Trump, how about citing the lack of commitment on a every day basis by the clergy against abortion. It is the Church that must lead the way, I mean lead not just in a one time demonstration event but back home in each and every parish on a daily basis.
One thing you can say is that about the Trump Administration he will not be seeking to put Pro Life Catholics in jail like Biden Administration did. So nice try at try to put a sliver in Trumps eye while ignoring the log in the Church eye on this issue.
I hope those arrested are pardoned.
I suspect that it’ll be a bit more difficult this time around to gain his support. His wife (an unrepentant Catholic) has been very vocal about her pro-abortion stance, and she certainly has his ear.
Augustus. We know that from his adulthood Trump can say and do anything he wishes. And we eat it up, religious or others.
Excerpt: Trump was courting pro-lifers in his re-election bid. In 2024, Trump ran from pro-lifers rather than stood with them.
We have voted for a man with questionable mental capacity. Pray that the four years will not be a time that will live in infamy.
“We have voted for a man with questionable mental capacity.”
Why bash on Biden?
Believe me, I am no fan of Joe Biden. But, Biden didn’t win. I agree that Biden displays the same signs. Today he will walk off into the sunset hopefully regaining his Catholic faith.
Today, the 20th day of 2025, two celebrations are being held. The inauguration of President Donald Trump and the Memorial holiday for the Reverend Martin Luther King.
One irony that may place this a day that will live in infamy. Trump’s celebration was moved into the US Capitol, the bastion of American Democracy, where he incited the insurrection to overthrow the 2020 election that he finally said he “lost by a whisker”. Moments ago the Proud Boys, minus their leader, minus their jailed leader Enrique Tarrio who Trump will pardon, marched past the Capitol in full battle dress.
Most former presidents provided a fair and peaceful transfer of power. Obama did that in 2016 with Trump, but Trump did not provide that essential duty for Biden in 2020. Biden, after all Trump’s efforts to insult and demean “Crazy Joe”, Biden attended today’s Trump ceremony having providing full support of the transfer.
Let’s pray that President Trump will rise up and show the way to a more peaceful and prosperous future.
Thank you.
Mental capacity??
Augustus, your swipe at the President’s wife is low and unnecessarily crass. Clean up your act.
Just stating a fact. You don’t have to like it, but it’s the truth.
Augustus: Attempting to shame another should be beneath your dignity. Obviously, it’s not.
Diogenese, someone who claims to be Catholic and is a rabid proponent of abortion deserves to be shamed – whether they are Joe Biden or Melania Trump. Melania definitely deserves to be derided for what she put in her book.
Oh please. I suppose that we should embrace her beliefs instead? Turn the other cheek, and all that? I’m sorry, but she supports and defends the murder of children. I’ll call that out all day, every day. It really is a shame that you don’t do the same. Perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are…
Publicly supporting abortion is not a social faux pas to be kindly covered over in polite conversation. If we are not expected to pretend Biden is a good, pro-life Catholic, why should we pretend Melania is?
I hope she is making an effort at moving back to the fullness of the Faith, as many others have. But she quite publicly is not there now.
You make a number of good points in your article.
I do think that Trump saw the surveys on abortion belief in this country and calculated that he would not get elected on a strong pro-life platform. I believe he was probably right in this. His was maybe a practical decision.
I am not sure how this differs in kind, but only in degree, from your statement that, “I propose this pro-life talking point for Trump’s second term: “We want to pass a federal law protecting babies from abortion in the second and third trimesters, except in medical emergencies and for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.” The practical result of that is to sacrifice the lives of first trimester babies. From the beginning of Roe we have had the debate on all or nothing vs. the incremental approach. There are strong arguments on both sides, and your statement leans toward the incremental approach.
Even the most pro-life Supreme Court judges have stated that abortion, based not on the moral law but on the constitution, is a State issue. While all of the local, state and national pro-life groups applauded the Dobbs decision, returning it to the states did not turn out as well as we had all hoped.
I have to say that the focus on state action rather than on our Catholic Church action is somewhat unfortunate. I have not heard preaching on moral issues , not in years, but in decades. I applaud such venues as CWR for many articles on moral issues, but until it gets to the parish level from the clergy I believe the effects will not be widespread. I have heard from my parish members such statements as, “well, there was no exception for rape or incest.” And this is not from a practical point of view, but rather that this would be the right thing to do.
And how about IVF? Over 90% of republican senators have been reliable pro-life voters, but not long ago senator Cruz stated that 100% of senators were in favor of pro IFV legislation – they just had to get the wording right. I haven’t heard a word on the parish level about this issue.
Promoting the murder of the unborn is a mortal sin. Canon law states that communion is not to be given to those in that state. The vast majority of bishops have elected to violate that canon, and some stating very strongly that they would not enforce it.
And now we have a cardinal just named as bishop of Washington D.C. who disagrees with the USCCB statement that abortion is the primary moral issue.
In order to convert the country, and our politicians, I believe that we need to convert our Church and its members first.
Abortion laws are a state issue, just as all the other laws against murder are state laws. There are laws regarding interstate murders, which fall under federal jurisdiction, and there should be analogous laws regarding interstate abortions. I have no idea where Trump stands on that.
There are a fair number of federal regulations that involve abortion. Federal funding for abortion, paying for abortions for military and other personnel, research involving fetal remains, etc. Trump has sounded like he’s fairly solid on these.
But there is also some historical precedent for what we do, legally, when some particular class of people is denied the protection of law by the states. In the case of slavery, we had an amendment to the Constitution. In the case of segregation, we had federal law, and the National Guard got called out.
You are spot on regarding the need to convert the Church to the Catholic Faith.
Your comments make me very thankful that the priests in my parish ARE pro-life and speak out regularly about the evils of abortion. They also encourage us to join them in various pro-life marches and demonstrations, and to give money/time to the pro-life centers that help women to choose life and have the material needs met so that they CAN choose life.
The Supreme Court struck down Roe and kicked the issue of abortion back to the States. There will be no national abortion ban. The action is in the State Legislature.
we can’t compete with the cities and universities – at least we weren’t able to in MI – Prop 3
tremendous anguish after that vote for pro lifers who had to witness communion bashing Whitmer cement her pro choice views into the constitution’s ink
Are all Democrats pro abortion? Of course not! Then why do they fail to to vote for pro-life candidates? I can’t understand why they are so silent.
It varies Mr. Collins and depends whether they are State or Federal representatives. We have prolife Democrats in our state legislature.
A pro-life democrat is a contradiction in terms. The democrat platform is very clear. It states that they are in favor of killing the unborn anytime, anyplace, for any reason, paid for by the government. Abortion is not some minor point in their platform. It is their sacrament. The democrat party said in 2024 that being pro-abortion was going to be the key issue that their presidential candidate would run on.
It would be like being a pro-integration member of the Klan. The other Klan members would kick you out, and the democrats try to primary out any pro-life democrat.
You are correct Crusader about the Democrat party’s national platform but it doesn’t apply to every state politician. Maybe one day things will improve at the federal level too, but that seems a very long time away.
Stupak–Pitts Amendment (read on Wiki or other)
back room deals on our future citizens and their mere existence
Many older Americans (including my parents, who have passed away) remember the Great Depression and how the Republican Presidents didn’t seem to be able or WILLING to help anyone, but when FDR, a Democrat, was elected, he immediately started programs at the state and local levels that provided work and FOOD for teens and young men (the ones who needed to eat the most food to grow and develop properly), and also started government programs that provided immediate needs for families who had lost everything and couldn’t find work to earn any money to buy food and pay for their homes.
Yes, we can argue about where the funds for these programs came from, and we can point out that our entry into WWII provided a lot of jobs that got people back to work…but the hungry people back then didn’t really care–they were just grateful to have something to eat and the promise of paying work.
We can argue that these programs actually were the beginning of government involvement and interference with everyday life and freedom of Americans, but to those who were starving, they were good programs and it’s hard to argue with that.
My mom and dad considered FDR a savior, someone who brought the country back (and yes, they realize that WWII also helped bring the country back). For years, they voted Democratic because they distrusted Republicans because of their failure to help people during the Great Depression.
Ever since FDR, the Democrats have been seen as “the Party of the Little Man”–the party that supported the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who we remember on this Monday (Jan 20) in his quest to bring civil right to African Americans, and the Party that has brought about many of the “welfare” programs that, like it or not, do provide some succor for the poor. (Ironically, it was the Democratic Party who, after the Civil War, supported the activities of the KKK, while the Republican Party actually worked to see several African Americans elected as Representatives in Congress. But the Democrats don’t talk about that!)
The Republicans are STILL seen as the “Party of the Wealthy”, and even though many wealthy people have given huge donations to organizations that help the poor and disenfranchised, many still see Republicans and the wealthy as uncaring. And the Democratic Party is still seen as the “Party of the Common Man,” even though many of the richest people in the U.S.–movie stars, corporation owners, etc.–are Democrats!
And strangely, although the Republican Party is the Party of Limited Government in the everyday lives of Americans, it is the Republicans who are most likely to be pro-life, which means involving government in the lives of pregnant women and stopping them from having abortions. And it is the Democratic Party, the Party of BIG government, who is lobbying for government to get OUT of women’s lives by allowing her “the right to choose to abort her contents of uterus.”
Many Catholics especially have a hard time voting for Republican candidates because they still think that the Democratic Party and the Big Government have the answers that will help “the Little Man.” What they need to think about is that the “Littlest Men” are in the womb, and just as the Democrats refused to recognize African Americans as “fully human” after the Civil War and worked with the KKK, they currently refuse to recognize the humanity of the fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, and formed child in the womb. OR… if they DO admit that “it might be a human being,” they still advocate killing it because a woman should have “the right to choose!–yikes!”
I pray for wisdom. I know that Pres. Trump is far from sainthood, but the alternative of voting for Democratic candidates is, IMO, a cooperation with evil.
Sadly, when pro-life Democrats do get elected (and it’s rare to find a pro-life Democratic candidate for anything), they are hounded and eventually ousted by their own Party. This happened to Rep. Dan Lipinski in my home state of Illinois. I have moved to a state where the people have elected pro-life officials most of the time.
“Trump now intimated by him
(asking if this is typo – intimidated?)
It’s time to vocalize our Catholic, moral commitments on all fronts and claim our rights to conscientious objection to all laws which violate our beliefs. While the moral tide may turn in our favor we must be weary of what we may have to give in order to gain. “ Temporary” shortcuts must not be tolerated. The end must not gained at the expense of the means.
It’s time to vocalize our Catholic, moral commitments on all fronts and claim our rights to conscientious objection to all laws which violate our beliefs. While the moral tide may turn in our favor we must be weary of what we may have to give in order to gain. “ Temporary” shortcuts must not be tolerated. The end must not gained at the expense of the means.
“It’s time to vocalize our Catholic, moral commitments on all fronts and claim our rights to conscientious objection to all laws which violate our beliefs.”
Just curious. At what point did you apply these principles to the Biden/Harris administration, or do you make an exception when your progressives are in power?
James Connor,
About “conscientious objection” and “‘temporary’ shortcuts,” this is probably a good time for the USCCB or even the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) to dust off the clarity and prudential wisdom of “The Gospel of Life” (St. John Paul II, 1995).
On your first point, JPII writes: “Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is not obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a GRAVE AND CLEAR OBLIGATION TO APPOSE THEM BY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION” [italics in original] (n. 73).
On your second point, JP II clarifies: “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on [….] In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at LIMITING THE HARM [italics in original] done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects” (ibid., n. 73).
Trump supports abortion in “earlier” term, “marriage” for people of the same sex etc. He supports the right of any person, or legislature, to have varying positions on abortion, but doesn’t have one himself. He is only following United States society as it has historically evolved. A true conservative. Christians must finally, after two centuries, accept that Conservatism and Christianity are two very different and incompatible things.
Christianity isn’t about politics in the first place, Mr.Miguel.
Actually, Christianity must intervene in civil society when the latter does not answer to things beyond itself like natural law and the otherworldly ends of citizens. But Conservatism denies that civil society is answerable to anything beyond itself. Therefore Conservatism and Christianity are incompatible.
To Augustus and some others here: If you think shaming sinners is a fruitful approach to evangelization, then have at it. Just take responsibility for the consequences.
Would a ‘pro-life Democrat break with his party and vote for a pro-life Republican? I doubt it.
I will be attending the March for Life for the first time ever, in spite of having done pro-life work on the streets as a sidewalk counselor and in other ways since 1990.
First off, I imagine Trump will not be attending, as I have heard nothing of any plans that he will. But, I don’t want him to attend, and neither should anybody else. The situation is too risky and too much of a headache for the Secret Service, which just went through one of the worst years of its existence. Look at the things they had to do with the inauguration. We would not want to put Trump or anyone else around him at risk. So I am not going to be disappointed if he isn’t there, and neither should anyone else. His not being there is the right thing to do at this time.
Now, let me also say this. I am a member of a Catholic religious congregation. At home, there is a Planned Parenthood just a few blocks from my community’s location. Other than myself, do you know what my community has done to oppose that abortuary and save lives? One Brother visiting from overseas went to a Life Chain outside of it, and our current superior went to the same event. Other than that, absolutely nothing. Not for 20 years of the abortuary being there.
Recently, I finally got up the courage to ask for a monthly Holy Hour devoted to shutting down the PP. One Brother, known to be a Biden supporter, is refusing to participate. Why? Because if we begin to pray about specific things, we should be praying about other things–victims of fires, cancer, etc. This Brother grew up in the 60’s and is about 78 years old. He joined the Brotherhood around 1970. He is a product of the 60’s-70’s revolution in the Church.
That is how little love there is for the pre-born and their mothers in the Church today. In 35 years I have seen it not only in my community, but in the overall Church. From bishops, priests, and laity alike. Most don’t go in front of abortuaries to sidewalk counselor for one reason only–they don’t want to do it. They don’t care for it. They would rather watch their Saturday morning television programs.
It is absolutely incredible. A religious, who is an elderly shut in, cannot walk a few feet from his bedroom to a small chapel to pray one hour a month before the Blessed Sacrament for babies to live simply because he does not care to do so. Until that mentality changes in the Church today, until we cease having high ranking Church officials addressing prayers to the DNC while abortions go on in a van outside, we will get nowhere as a nation and a world in the stopping of abortion.
The Church must change first. The Church must stop its acquiescence in abortion. Oh, yes, this acquiescence exists! Don’t throw at me public statements by the USCCB and say it doesn’t. I’ve seen the proof on the ground. I’ve seen even megachurches across the street from abortuaries do next to nothing about them, even after they are pleaded from for help, all because pastors do not want to get involved.
Don’t look to Trump or any politicians to solve this. Each one of us needs to look in a mirror and, if we have not been doing anything, decide that the person who will do something about abortion is staring back at them at that moment.
God bless you Brother John.
Relegating abortion to the states protects unborn children in the long run. A federal statute that, say, prohibits abortion sets the precedent that “abortion policy” can be set federally. And we all know how federal politics can chaotically change every four years. If the decision on abortion is set federally, it can change when the political winds do. A national abortion ban (which would be undeniably good, in an ideal world) could be reversed in under a decade, replaced by a federal law establishing abortion as a right in all states (as we have seen with roe.)
Politics is a worldly, nasty business that unfortunately requires compromise and deception. If, as Catholics, we want to “play the game,” we need to play by the same book our enemies play by. If that includes throwing support behind the lesser of two evils, so be it.
It should be set at all levels. All institutions of civil society answer to natural law. Trump is responsible.
Well what do you know? All of a sudden on January 20th, extreme leftist Catholics on these pages and thoughout the USA have developed a moral compass! Wonders never cease. Conversion of heart IS possible. (But wait until the next extreme leftist Democrat is elected and their moral “principles” will have vanished.)
He was quick to pardon the Jan 6 protesters but the prolife ones will, I fear, be viewed as small fish and I guess they will not be out for the DC march. Vance needs to act with his Catholic mindset if he doesn’t well then shows that both take the prolife cause as a means to power and then, do not bother us until 2028! You got row/wade done away WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!!!
J Mallion: I guess you must be happy now that he’s pardoned the pro-life hostages.
Since all the Democratic Senators just voted against life-saving care for babies who survive an abortion, placing the burden of the pro-life movement for the unborn on one man, President Trump, seems ridiculous. He pardoned those prosecuted by the Biden DOJ under the FACE Act and Vice President J.D. Vance will speak at the March for Life. The news cycle almost moves too fast for our commentary!
The Democrats’ position is well-known. The issue here is whether Trump should be given the time of the day by anyone who opposes abortion. He shouldn’t. He has now explained his logic behind changing the Supreme Court and overturning Roe V Wade: to make it a States rights issue – the States, he says, should be guided by “their heart”. In other words do anything except permit abortion in the last month, OR outlaw it from conception. THAT is Trump’s position on abortion. Sorry to spoil the party but there you are.
Does he want the votes of anti-abortionists? Of course. It was great to see his decrees on gender changing etc, but remember that his position on same-sex “marriage” is that it is now “water under the bridge”. He accepts it, despite the issue being closely related to the gender changing one. Just another grubby politician. Time for natural law and Christianity to have the final say on politics, not Conservatism.