St. Anthony Messenger magazine
St. Anthony Messenger

I’d Like to Say: Stop Weaponizing the Eucharist

April 25, 2022
priest holding up the holy eucharist
We may find common ground on pro-life issues when we expand our view to include other pressing social problems.

American Bishops are struggling with the idea of “eucharistic coherence.” The issue presented to them is, in a nutshell, what to do about politicians (most obviously, the observant Catholic President Joseph Biden) who hold a pro-choice position on the question of abortion. Should they be subject to some as-yet-to-be-defined discipline? 

The argument put forward seems very simple to a portion of American Catholics: How can you square what the proponents of this move term “support for abortion” with a Catholic faith that teaches abortion to be an “abominable crime” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2271)? 

On the other hand, many Catholics see the move as an attempt to politicize and even weaponize the Eucharist on behalf of a shortsighted political agenda that does not deal with the enormous social, political, theological, and moral complexities of the American Church. 

Among this latter group would appear to be the pope himself. In a recent interview, when he was asked about “bishops who want to deny Communion to the president and others who hold office,” Pope Francis flatly declared: “I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone, to anyone. I don’t know if anyone in that condition came, but I never, never refused the Eucharist. As a priest, that is. Never.” 

Pope Francis then added: “The problem is not the theological problem—that is simple—the problem is the pastoral problem: How do we bishops deal with this principle pastorally? And if we look at the history of the Church, we will see that every time the bishops have dealt with a problem not as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem. . . . What must the pastor do? Be a pastor. Be a pastor and don’t go around condemning. . . . But if he goes out of the pastoral dimension of the Church, he immediately becomes a politician: You see this in all the accusations, in all the non-pastoral condemnations the Church makes.” 

I am not a bishop and will not presume to tell them their job. But I am, I hope, a faithful member of the flock—as well as a citizen of the United States charged by the Church with the job of actively participating in our democracy. As a layperson, it actually falls to me, far more than to the Church’s shepherds, to do the work of sanctifying the secular order. I do this out of a desire to protect human life from conception to natural death as the Church teaches. 

At the altar, the priest presides. But in the world, we laity preside. So when the bishops contemplate barring a president of a secular nation-state from the Eucharist on the grounds of “eucharistic coherence,” this directly impinges on what the Church itself declares to be my proper sphere of authority as a layman and citizen called to involvement in our political process. 


A Historical Perspective 

First, a brief discussion of the Church’s abortion policy is in order. It is a popular myth among some Catholics that to vote for the left side of the spectrum is to “support abortion” and thereby make oneself worthy of the fires of hell. The simplistic formula at work here is: Liberals promote abortion while conservatives fight it. Therefore, there is a moral obligation to vote conservative. 

In fact, America’s abortion policy is the creation of a Supreme Court that has been dominated by Republican appointees since 1970. The historical truth is that every Democratic appointee to the Court could have been golfing on the day Roe v. Wade was decided, and it would have made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the ruling. Moreover, when the biggest entrenchment of abortion law since Roe—the 1992 Casey decision—was made, the 5–4 Court that made it consisted of eight GOP appointees along with a Democratic appointee who was pro-life. In short, our abortion policy is a completely Republican creation. 

pro-life advocates protesting
As a Catholic Christian who believes human life should be sacred and honored from conception to natural death, what am I to do? And what would I like the bishops to do?

This brings us to the next point. While it is true that those on the left tend to favor a pro-choice position, it is not true that they “promote” abortion. What they do is maintain a GOP-created and -entrenched system that permits—not compels—private citizens to have an abortion. There is no state-ordered abortion program. This is neither the Nazi regime mandating the death of the “unfit” nor the People’s Republic of China compelling women to abort. 

Our abortion policy is, in fact, a triumph of libertarian thinking and the free market. Women can abort or not as they wish. To speak of “promoting” abortion, as though it is ordered by either the president or a politician, is to radically distort language. In fact, what drives abortion is not the state but economic pressure. 

Abortion is primarily pursued as an economic relief valve by women who feel they cannot afford to raise a child. The number one abortifacient in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute, is poverty. To that degree, the “pro-choice” position is a misnomer, not because liberals compel it but because certain right-wing policies that are economically hostile to poor families do. Large percentages of women abort not because they choose to, but because they feel they have no other choice. 


By the Numbers 

Abortion rates rose from 1973 to 1980, during the tenures of two pro-choice GOP presidents and one Democrat who was on record saying that Jesus would not support abortion in most cases. Abortion rates slowly declined during the Reagan/Bush years, though these presidents would consistently appoint to the Supreme Court justices who would form the backbone of entrenched support for abortion rights in the Casey decision. 

But suddenly there came a precipitous drop in abortion rates in the 1990s. The reason had nothing to do with the Court. It was due to Clinton-era policies that took economic pressure to abort off lower-income women. Far from “promoting” abortion, the goal during the Clinton years was, in the words of the administration, to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” And the numbers show that Clinton’s policies, in fact, achieved the pro-life goal of reducing abortion. 

In other words, what the Clinton administration chose to do was to leave in place the abortion policy that was the creation of Republicans and not attempt to interfere with the supply of abortion, but to instead tackle the problem of demand.

This would be the same tactic used by the Obama-Biden administration. And in both cases, abortion rates saw their steepest declines since Roe. Not until Trump (who, by the way, also raised funding for Planned Parenthood to historic levels) did abortion rates rise because conservatives, as they have historically done, pursued policies that punished the poor. If we want to speak about “promoting” abortion, that is where the problem lies. What promotes abortion is not supply but rather economic pressure that creates demand. 

If we want to effectively fight abortion as opposed to merely talking about it, then a committed, pro-life Catholic voter like me concludes—with a completely clear conscience—that he not only may, but must, support the policies of Obama/Biden. 


What Do Americans Want? 

This brings us to the next problem that politicians such as Biden (and pro-life voters like me) face as pluralistic Americans living in a representative democracy: the paradox that legal abortion is among the most popular things Americans loathe. 

It’s like this: Precisely because there is a demand for abortion created by a host of economic and social pressures on women, only 13 percent of Americans want abortion to be outlawed. At the same time, only 21 percent want “abortion on demand without apology.” Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans feel deep discomfort with abortion, but do not want Roe to go anywhere. 

That 60 percent in the middle is a huge, fluid demographic of people who find abortion distasteful and repugnant, but who have no intention of telling some petrified teenager that she must carry her baby to term even if her parents disown her or her boyfriend ditches her (as well as a million other crisis scenarios you can easily imagine). The result is citizens who insist on maintaining some form of legal abortion and, at the same time, eagerly hope they never have to hear about abortion again. That means that both proponents and abolitionists can truthfully say that some 75–80 percent of Americans side with them in both opposing abortion and wanting it legal. 

Our political discussions are built around that ambiguity. Neither party wants to do anything to get rid of our abortion policy for one very good reason: Americans don’t want them to do that. But both know how to exploit the fears and angers of their base in order to keep milking them for votes with promises of (and dire warnings against) imminent abolition, even though both parties know that is not going to happen. 


Eucharistic Coherence: More Than Abortion

As a Catholic who believes human life to be sacred from conception to natural death, what am I to do? And what would I like the bishops to do? 

To start with, I take as a given that, for the foreseeable future, abortion will remain legal. But the idea here is not to “support the lesser evil” (we can never do that), but to lessen evil, to reduce it, to do what is possible. 

I applaud the idea of “eucharistic coherence.” But what I want to see is not zinging one Catholic politician about abortion. The claim that the Catholic Biden, acting as a secular politician in a secular democracy, is somehow confusing the world about what the Church teaches concerning abortion is, to put it simply, nonsense. Everybody on planet Earth certainly knows that the Church opposes abortion. What they are confused about is not the Church’s teaching about the dignity of human life from conception, but the Church’s teaching about any form of life that gets in the way of what American conservatives want to do. 

Eucharistic coherence includes being against war and torture, against the death penalty, against injustice at our southern border. Eucharistic coherence includes care for all people, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or any other type of division. Eucharistic coherence is incompatible with insurrection in our nation’s capital (see sidebar on opposite page). 

As a lay voter, I don’t need to be reminded that the Church opposes abortion. I know. I agree. I have for decades. What I want to see is the Church (clergy and laity) really presenting a full-orbed and coherent picture of Catholic teaching that is more pro-life, not less; more eucharistic, not less. 

holy eucharist wafers
Instead of turning the Eucharist into a sort of reducing valve designed to cut people off from grace, I would much rather see grace extended as fully as possible through the Eucharist to every person, born and unborn, in the Church’s pastoral preaching.

For the past 15 years, many Catholics have claimed that the Church teaches that abortion is a so-called “nonnegotiable” issue while such things as war, torture, a living wage, climate change, racism, police violence, sexual abuse, the dignity of marginalized people such as LGBTQ individuals or refugees, the death penalty, murderous insurrection, and a host of other pressing questions are “prudential matters” and therefore trumped by abortion. 

The practical result of this claim (nowhere attested by the magisterium) is that the unborn are pitted against rather than related to nearly the whole of the Church’s social teaching and the people it aims to protect. Indeed, in many cases, support for the Church’s social teaching is often sneered at by self-identified “pro-life” advocates, as though objecting to the death penalty, or climate change, or the kidnapping of children at the border necessarily makes one “pro-abortion.” 

This must cease. Jesus, fully present in the Eucharist, offers his body, blood, soul, and divinity—his very self—for every human being from conception to natural death. Therefore, any attempt to pit the unborn against all the other forms of human life Jesus loves and cherishes is incoherent. 

More than this, the Eucharist—which is Jesus himself—must not be turned into a thing: a lucky talisman for blessing one party and withholding favor from another. 


Don't Weaponize the Eucharist 

As a pro-life citizen, I oppose abortion. I always have. I voted for Biden because I am pro-life and knew that his policies would, as they did from 2009 to 2017, lower abortion rates. I did not vote for him because I “support the lesser evil” (I repeat: no Catholic can do that) but because I sought to lessen evil. 

More than this, I believe Catholics must provide a credible witness to those who do not share our conviction about the unborn. The way to do that is to relate the unborn to—not pit them against—all those people menaced by the threats many non-Catholics rightly care about.

In addition to the unborn, we must bear witness to the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the lives of victims of climate change, racism, poverty, hatred of LGBTQ individuals, capital punishment, sexual abuse, and a host of other issues. Every time the unborn are pitted against all these other sorts of human beings instead of related to them, true eucharistic incoherence occurs. 

Instead of turning the Eucharist into a sort of reducing valve designed to cut people off from grace, I would much rather see grace extended as fully as possible through the Eucharist to every person, born and unborn, in the Church’s pastoral preaching. Instead of beginning every discussion of the Eucharist with “Who do we get to exclude?”, we should, like Pope Francis, preach the good news of the grace and mercy of Christ to every person from conception to natural death.  

Coherence or Confusion? 

What does Eucharistic Coherence really mean? To be coherent with Catholic social teaching, the following cases should be considered as violations of the Church’s pro-life teachings on a par with abortion. 

  • In the ramp-up to the Iraq War, noted Catholic “pro-life” conservatives like Michael Novak pushed for an unjust war rejected by two popes and all the bishops of the world. There was no push to punish advocacy of mass murder as eucharistic incoherence. 
  • During that war, EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo more than once offered apologetics for the Bush administration’s use of torture, an act every bit as incoherent with the Eucharist as a celebration of abortion. 
  • In 2018, Nebraska Catholic governor Pete Ricketts vowed to continue killing prisoners on death row despite the legislature moving to ban capital punishment and the Church calling for its global abolition—and despite the estimate that 4 percent of death row prisoners are innocent. The eucharistic incoherence of killing innocents in order to unnecessarily kill guilty people went unchallenged. 
  • TV host Laura Ingraham, who is Catholic, mocked refugee child detention facilities as “essentially summer camps.” The eucharistic incoherence of laughing off kidnapping and jailing children went unchallenged. 
  • Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), celebrated the murder of George Floyd by tweeting, “Just a reminder that George Floyd has gone five weeks and two days drug free.” He also tweeted support of his nephew for being a member of the White supremacist Proud Boys group and declared, “We need more not less toxicity.” No calls for eucharistic coherence resulted. 
  • John Eastman, chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, authored the proposed plan for the Trump administration to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, as well as helping to foment the insurrection on January 6, 2021. Eucharistic incoherence was not invoked over this massive public scandal. 

Subscribe to St. Anthony Messenger!


Francisco J. Walker
Wed, 04/27/2022 - 07:25 PM
Francisco J. Walker
Hi, With regards to this article I would the following: it is a well written piece filled with fallacies and a total misrepresentation of Catholic Doctrine (Like Mario Cuomos famous, as a Catholic I reject abortion but as a citizen I can't forced my position on others, ad sensum not verbatim)... In my humble opinion it is VERY irresponsible to publish this kind of material for everyone to be exposed to such a confusing article. Canon Law is applicable regardless of percentages of of people supporting abortion or not...the Church has always exercised her Canonical power on those who claimed to be Catholics, it is not weaponizing to apply Canon #915 on those who support evil laws. I insist, well written article but the problem is that does not represent the true Catholic vision; also the Pope can't be quoted as an authority when he speaks as a private theologian.
Raymond Mulholland
Fri, 04/29/2022 - 03:23 AM
Raymond Mulholland
I agree, thank you so much for saying this! I could say so much here, but I will stick with the main topic. The CCC is quite clear on this matter, and one would be very hard pressed to find any passage in the CCC that uses stronger terms concerning the heinous nature of abortion. And it clearly includes all those who make abortion possible, not simply the doctor and woman. No Catholic, including Pope Francis, can decide when the CCC is applicable or not. It is always applicable and at all times. Either we follow our faith, or we don't. As for the "fallacies" you so astutely pointed out concerning the article, I think it is gross negligence to ignore how President Biden threatened to sue Texas for making abortion harder to come by. This act went beyond a secular official performing the secular duties of his office. President Biden is required to perform the duties of his office, even if he disagrees with them on moral grounds. But to not only try to force his will on an office outside his jurisdiction, but to do so in favor of a position so completely contrary to his "professed" religion is all the evidence the US Bishops need to ban him from communion. The Bishops are not "weaponizing" the Eucharist over abortion. President Biden, Speaker Pelozi and many other Catholic in Name Onlys are weaponizing abortion against the Eucharist. Either the Bishops (including Pope Francis) defend the Eucharist, or they don't. But in one detail, I do agree with the writer. As voters, we have epistemic responsibility as well. Either Catholics vote like they are Catholics, or they don't. I do not fault politicians for enforcing laws demanded by the voters, that places guilt on the voters. It is only when politicians go over and beyond this minimum that they become culpable.
MJ Wells
Mon, 05/02/2022 - 09:27 AM
MJ Wells
To: Francisco J. Walker You have a right to your opinion but you do not have a right to bully others. Did you stand up for Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, George Floyd? They were human beings whose lives were taken by the very people who swore to protect other human beings. I be interested in your answer but I bet you do not the guts to answer.
Jim Myres, OFS
Mon, 05/02/2022 - 09:36 AM
Jim Myres, OFS
Peace my friends Thank you for this article. It is not an easy life being a Pro-Life Democrat.
Linda S
Sat, 05/07/2022 - 01:56 PM
Linda S
Totally with you on this. I, too, voted for Biden in 2020 (after voting Republican for president since 1976), for many of the reasons cited in the article. "Prolife" means so much more than being anti-abortion. I am trying to persuade people I influence (hopefully) to support extending Medicaid here in Georgia when it is very likely that Georgia will ban most abortions if Roe is truly overturned. This seems like a way to get a much-needed policy in place and reduce abortions compassionately.
Lucy Protosow
Mon, 05/02/2022 - 01:24 PM
Lucy Protosow
By far one of the best articles I have read in many years that perfectly describes the American progressive Catholic. I had to walk away from the Catholic church since the 2016 election wherein the media such as EWTN embraced the conservative political agenda. In particular the support of far right celebrities of FOX news and the Republican party featured on the news presented by Raymond Arroyo. I tried to ignore the propoganda of the church promoted by Catholic media supporting horrible people like Steve Bannon and Mike Huckabee who certainly don't represent ; the teachings of Christ. To me supporting Donald Trump is an abomination of virtue and truth and empathy and love of all of Christ's children, of all races and of all the poor. For the first time in 5 years, I am encouraged that there are moderate and progressive of discerning intelligent and reasonable Catholics that can accept the leadership of Pope Francis' more liberal interpretations of the scriptures. I was inspired and grateful for Mark P. Shea's thoughtful and profound essay.
Catherine Sullivan
Mon, 05/02/2022 - 01:25 PM
Catherine Sullivan
A very thoughtful article. If a Catholic believes in capital punishment should they be denied Eucharist? I support Cardinal Bernadine's "Seamless Garment" philosophy.
john mueller
Mon, 05/02/2022 - 01:32 PM
john mueller
Well said! Your perspective relates to Cardinal Bernadin's notion of the "seamless garment" concept of Catholic Social Teachings; which in fact are quite consistent in their totality and facilitate the very sense of 'coherence' some bishops seemingly worry about, in some malformed, myopic way. I agree, much of the so-called 'Pro-life' movement is incoherent. The very same trend that accused other devout Catholics as 'cafeteria' types, now chooses to look past the entirety of the many issues developing from the culture and society, we all live in.
I'm for thinking
Mon, 05/02/2022 - 05:01 PM
I'm for thinking
YAY. Thank you for writing this.
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 10:23 AM
I cannot believe you are publishing Mark Shea. Do you read his social media entries on Twitter and Facebook? He is profane, judgmental and is known for relying on straw men and false characterizations. This piece does not take history seriously - it does not indicate any familiarity at all with the Church's teaching and practice regarding reception of the Eucharist. The question of "worthiness" has been long discussed and examined, and in far more profound terms than Shea can manage.
Louisa Bisogno
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 01:35 PM
Louisa Bisogno
Fact checking with the Gospel of Our Lord reveals the article is spot-on about Christ's teaching -- it is necessary to protect life Post as well as Pre-birth to be a follower of Jesus..
Mary R. Max
Fri, 05/06/2022 - 01:23 AM
Mary R. Max
Any discussion of the legality of abortion must contend with CCC 2273, which states that "from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights." The official teaching of the Catholic Church, which all Catholics must assent to, is that abortion must be prohibited by criminal law. There is room for debate regarding whom to punish (doctors yes, mothers perhaps), how severe the punishment should be, and what mitigating factors might exist. But a Catholic cannot hold the position that abortion should be legal. This makes the analysis of how a Catholic should vote more involved than presented here. It is not, as Mr. Shea suggests, simply a matter of determing which candidate's social and economic policies might, as a second- or third-order effect, cause the abortion rate to dip. Catholic voters cannot throw up their hands, say "abortion will always be legal" (or worse, "abortion should always be legal") and seek to reduce the annual body count by fiddling with marginal tax rates. They have the responsibility to move the law in the direction of abolition. This is not to say that a voter may never cast a ballot for a Democrat, or must always vote for the Republican. But he must factor the Church's teaching that abortion is to be prohibited - not merely disincentivized - into his voting decision. As for the issue of denying the Eucharist to high-ranking government officials and other highly visible "celebrity" Catholics, I end up not too far from where Mr. Shea does, but via a very different path. To deny Joe Biden the Eucharist is a public act that will be considered by many to be a political act. It will be, in a sense, the Church picking a fight with the President of the United States, even if the Church does not see it that way. As with any fight, Just War principles apply: Is it likely to work? Is it the last resort? Is the good sought greater than the damage done? My conclusion, for now at least, is that while encouraging Biden to repent is a laudable goal, I don't expect denying the Eucharist to work, and I believe that the Church will be unfairly but successfully portrayed as a partisan tool of Republicans. Having said that, the assertion that "barring a president of a secular nation-state from the Eucharist ... directly impinges on what the Church itself declares to be my proper sphere of authority as a layman and citizen called to involvement in our political process" is nonsense. The Church's decision to bar a president from the Eucharist is not a restriction on a Catholic voter's right to vote for that president. Joe Biden's fitness to receive the Eucharist is in many cases orthogonal to the question of whether he is fit for office. A divorced and civilly remarried man is committing adultery, and is not worthy to receive the Eucharist. But that doesn't mean that the Church judges him to be unfit for the presidency.
Mark Shea
Fri, 05/06/2022 - 06:44 PM
Mark Shea
Biden is widowed. Newt Gingrich, in contrast, has dumped multiple wives, yet there is no outcry about Eucharistic Coherence regarding him. This kind of absurd ideologically-driven targeting of one person is just about the most incoherent stuff out there. It is obvious that this in not about coherence but about using the unborn as human shields for punishing non-MAGA Catholics. Thank you, however, for making clear that the goal is to punish post-abortive women (which will inevitably mean punishing miscarrying women too). That is insane, but it is where this is obviously going to go.
John Boyd
Mon, 05/09/2022 - 10:51 PM
John Boyd
Wow - Where do I start? POTUS can't predict appointees' rulings, thus SCOTUS abortion decisions cannot be described as "Republican creation". Biden does indeed "promote" abortion, by advocating taxpayer funding. Right-wing economic policies are definitely not "hostile" to the poor. Pro-business, job-growth incentives have created numerous jobs, lifting millions out of poverty. And private sector charities, staffed by lots of pro-life voters, are there to help too. And poverty is no reason to kill a baby anyway, given the availability of adoption, not mentioned in the article. Clinton: "safe, legal, and rare". Biden: when has he ever said that killing babies should be rare? Trump, for all his many flaws, often stated that human life is a "precious gift from God", which makes him far more pro-life than his "Catholic" successor. Trump certainly did not increase Planned Parenthood funding; quite the opposite. His March 2019 decision to cancel Title X funding deprived PP of millions in subsidies. Still praying that a "pastoral" deacon, priest, or bishop has a chat with Biden about the unborn, but unfortunately, the pro-abortion pressure on him will likely prevail.
Mon, 05/16/2022 - 11:31 AM
Scandal. (2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.) This is what Progressive Catholics are causing for many Catholics. Recents event with the Supreme Court leak just show how out of touch many Catholic politicians are with Catholic teachings. Nancy Pelosi and President Biden are the poster children for this scandal. The Eucharist has already been used as a weapon by Progressive Catholics, the Church in the US, must show all that being a public cafeteria Catholic is no longer acceptable.
John Dunn
Fri, 05/20/2022 - 12:07 PM
John Dunn
Very good read and I agree with it. Everyone by now knows the consequences of abortion. But above all the problems folks have with it is, it's still a god given right that it is the mothers decision. If humans had eggs and someone decided to bring it to life and raise it then it might make sense. A foundational right of being a Christain is the right to make our own decisions. Our Holy Mother Mary had that right and I can't imagine it being taken away from her. "Who are we to judge."
Fri, 05/20/2022 - 07:03 PM
Our Holy Mother Mary had a right to choose to abort her Son? Um, no. Besides being extremely "offensive to pious ears," that assertion is simply wrong from the point of view of Catholic moral teaching. Free will is not the freedom to choose to do evil (which abortion is, according to Church teaching). Free will is the ability to freely choose to do what is good. Mary freely chose to do God's will by agreeing to become the Mother of God. Abortion is against God's will, so Mary would *never* choose that and in fact *no one* has a right to choose it. To choose to do evil is an abuse of free will and a sin.
Thu, 05/26/2022 - 03:30 PM
I expect better than this from Franciscan Media.
Thu, 05/26/2022 - 03:55 PM
it’s dangerous to only read materials that support your beliefs. I for one am grateful that y’all took on This topic. Blessings to all! 🙏
Jan Emmert
Sat, 05/28/2022 - 12:13 AM
Jan Emmert
I too am disappointed in Franciscan Media. Certainly St. Francis had no problem with the spiritual works of mercy, in particular “admonishing the sinner”. Would you call him judgemental. Regardless of your political party or religious affiliation, the intentional killing of an unborn child is a grave evil. Speaking out against this grave evil (a spiritual work of mercy) and working to change the laws re: abortion is not a “short-sighted political agenda”; it is one of many ways to live the Gospel in our democracy. And how can one assume that those who do this work are “pitting the unborn against all those people menaced by the threats many non-Catholics rightly care about”? We all work to promote the sanctity of life as the Spirit moves us to do. I’d like to say: let us try to respect all those who work for the seamless garment of life, in whatever area they work on it, in a spirit of Christian charity. Sadly, I did not see this respect for all in this article.
Eileen Miller
Sat, 05/28/2022 - 06:24 PM
Eileen Miller
There are two glaring things no one has mentioned. First, we live in a democratic republic here in the U.S. The Constitution includes the separation of Church and State for very good reasons. It is not based on Christianity as so many think. It is based on the Magna Carta and British Common Law. In so far as as some of those principals are “Christian” in nature, we have a moral commonality and laws. Not everyone in the U.S. agrees with RC teaching on abortion or even the beginning of life. The Church sides with the fetus, which is fine. But in my view, it cannot presume to impose it’s religious beliefs on the whole country. Secondly, I am a retired R.N. I am opposed to abortion for convenience’s sake. I believe that intercourse is a sacred event between two people who are committed to one another and are faithful to each other. It is not to be used for pleasure only, as our culture would have us believe. Abortion is sometimes a necessary thing in the event of maternal complications that endanger the lives of both mother and fetus. There are very real cases where carrying the baby to term would cost the lives of both. In these circumstances, “taking the baby early” is necessary to save the life of the mother and in some cases, the baby too. Doctors are educated to save lives and that is what they mean to do when they are faced with some of these very complicated pregnancies and births. The idea that women can choose to abort a baby at 9 months is a fallacy spread by “pro- life” proponents to demonize the idea of a woman’s right to choose. In all my years of working, I never heard a woman who said - at 9 months along - “ We’ll, I’ve changed my mind and I want an abortion now”. The baby would likely be a live birth anyway, just as it would at even 6 or 7 months. So,that just does not happen. It truly doesn’t happen much beyond 3 months, only rarely in a special circumstance. And I can’t imagine any doctor I’ve ever encountered in my 45 year career being willing to perform such a thing as that. Abortion is far from a black and white decision. It needs to remain as a private issue between the prospective mother and the doctor. The mother will face God someday and will have to explain her actions to Him. We are in no position to judge. Nor should we. It has become a political issue and it is anything but that. It is an unresolvable issue because there are so many opinions. But, it is still the woman’s body, and it must remain her decision.

Add new comment