The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.

Presumably, Catholic politicians who take no action to outlaw the use of contraceptives should be subject to the same treatment as those who don’t act to outlaw abortion. With this in mind, why wasn’t contraception mentioned in the articulation of “general principles” on the distribution of communion?

If you define an indirect abortion as the unintended and indirect death of an unborn child resulting from an attempt to save the life of the mother, then you have not violated the natural moral law.

Voting for pro-choice legislation, because one believes that the alternative wouldn’t stop abortion and would result in the deaths of thousands of women (though one does believe abortion is an intrinsic evil), is hardly formal cooperation with evil. Indeed, as I’ve shown above, Church teaching claims quite the opposite.

“No. An abortion, by definition, is anytime a pregnancy is, well, aborted. There are spontaneous abortions. There are direction abortions. There are indirect abortions.”

My point is that the direct and intentional killing of innocent unborn human life is the only definition of abortion that has moral implications. Spontaneous/indirect abortions, though sad and tragic, have no relevance to the natural moral law.

“Catholic politicians who advocate public policies and human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts such as abortion and thus contravene the natural law (as upheld by the Magisterium) are not in communion with Catholic moral teachings.”

Charlie further says,

“This is not Church Teaching as has already been explained above. Advocating for public policy is far more complex than this…both in reality and in the Roman Catholic moral tradition which reflects this reality.”

Yes, Charlie, this is Church Teaching as outlined above. I cannot state the Church’s position any more clearly than Cardinal Ratzinger did in 2004:

“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

“Catholic politicians who advocate public policies and human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts such as abortion and thus contravene the natural law (as upheld by the Magisterium) are not in communion with Catholic moral teachings.”

This is not Church Teaching as has already been explained above. Advocating for public policy is far more complex than this…both in reality and in the Roman Catholic moral tradition which reflects this reality.

“For starters, not all abortions of pregnancy are intrinsically evil. What constitutes an IE act is very complex, but Church teaching is currently that indirect abortions for a proportionate reason (like saving the life of the mother) can be licit. So, right there, you have a prudential judgment with regard to the act itself.”

An abortion, by definition, is the direct killing of an unborn child. This act is intrinsically evil. It is hardly a complex moral concept.

An “indirect abortion” is not an abortion at all. Thus, if an unborn child dies as an unintended and indirect consequence of an attempt to save the life of the mother, no abortion has been committed.

Accordingly, there is no prudential judgment involved with respect to the act itself. If the homicide is direct and intentional, it is abortion. If the homicide is indirect and unintentional, it is not abortion.

This is the natural law. Catholic politicians who advocate public policies and human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts such as abortion and thus contravene the natural law (as upheld by the Magisterium) are not in communion with Catholic moral teachings.

Catholic politicians who publically oppose human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts (even if they may differ with the Church regarding issues subject to prudential judgment) remain in communion with the Church.

I still fail to recognize the flaw in my position.

No, not really, having stated it pretty clearly the first time. But thanks for playing.

Oh, and speaking of arguments…I’m still trying to find one in your post. You assert that ‘the issue of abortion’ (I’m not sure what aspect of this issue you are talking about) is not a prudential judgment, but because I know you are a good Catholic I know you can’t mean this because Church teaching is that one can have an indirect abortion for a proportionate reason…by definition a prudential judgment. And one of the quotes offered by Chris from JPII claims that a Catholic legislator can support laws limiting the harm done by abortion (say, banning abortion in all cases but life and rape)…but this would require, you guessed it, a prudential judgment.

Now, because I know you are a good Catholic, I know you will want to restate your point about ‘the matter of abortion’ and prudence.

Whenever a person says this, you can lay pretty good odds that, in fact, the person has not made the person’s argument, but it is a cute rhetorical ploy that permits a person to avoid having to proffer a counter-argument.

Respectfully, I did. Twice.

Respectfully, you probably ought to take a reading course. Christopher and Legislator have both laid down that you are quite mistaken about the prudential aspect of abortion, offering quotes from the catechism and other Church teaching, and you have blithely blown past it without much thought or effort.

Now, I’ll just ask again: why would this legislator be denied communion over a disagreement with the local bishop over a prudential judgment when a pro-death penalty Catholic legislator would not be for his prudential judgment?

And you’ll probably just ignore the response again, but the matter of abortion is not a prudential judgment, it is clearly prohibited. You can twist this beyond all recognition, but it does not change the reality. Sorry.

Second, there is a distinction to be made between between the act itself and the public policy surrounding an act. For instance, we all know that abandoning of the poor is one of the worst things any person can do…Jesus claims that you end up in hell if you do it…the Church fathers call it indirect homicide…Aquinas says that the poor are actually owed our resources…etc. But it doesn’t follow that this moral duty must be legislated. A Roman Catholic law maker must make a prudential judgment about how best to enact this value into law…making it mandatory to give resources to the poor might actually not be the best way to achieve this goal. Public policy over has unintended consequences and thus a prudential judgment must be made (which often seems counter-intuitive) about how best to achieve the value in question. Now, with abortion, a Catholic legislator would necessarily have to agree that (at least most) abortions are an intrinsic evil…but they could very easily come to the reasonable (though I think false) prudential judgment that the pro-choice position best defends human life for the reasons I already mentioned.

Now, I’ll just ask again: why would this legislator be denied communion over a disagreement with the local bishop over a prudential judgment when a pro-death penalty Catholic legislator would not be for his prudential judgment?