Catholic Voice NC Questions & Answers
The Bishops of North Carolina take positions on issues that are rooted in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Some of the questions about the positions of the bishops that are expressed through Catholic Voice North Carolina are answered below. The Q & A was compiled from documents created originally by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Respect Life
WHAT IS ROE V. WADE?
It is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. A woman who said she was pregnant from rape and wanted an abortion (“Jane Roe” in court documents) sued a Texas district attorney (Henry Wade) to prevent him from enforcing a Texas law banning abortion except to save the mother’s life. On January 22, 1973, the Court decided this case, and a similar case (Doe v. Bolton) in which a woman denied an abortion by a hospital review committee (“Mary Doe” in court documents) had challenged Georgia’s law. The Court struck down both laws, with the effect of striking down similar laws in all the other states as well. Jane Roe (whose real name is Norma McCorvey) later admitted having lied about the rape. Horrified at these decisions’ impact, both she and Mary Doe (whose real name is Sandra Cano) are now among those urging their reversal. (TOP)
WASN’T THE COURT ONLY CONTINUING A TREND TOWARD “LIBERALIZING” ABORTION LAWS BEGUN BY THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
No. In the years leading up to Roe, proposals to weaken laws against abortion were introduced in most states but usually not enacted. Some states did add narrow exceptions to their laws, and a few legalized abortion for any reason, generally up to 20 weeks’ gestation. But then the trend reversed. New York’s legislature voted to restore legal protection to unborn children (a move blocked by the governor’s veto). And in 1972 the people of Michigan and North Dakota overwhelmingly voted to reject proposals to loosen their abortion laws. After studying public opinion against legalized abortion, demographer Judith Blake concluded that a Supreme Court decision striking down state laws would be “the only road to rapid change.” Roe created a national policy more extreme than the law of any state, and it disrupted the democratic process by which the American people had begun to deal with the conflicting claims of the abortion debate. (TOP)
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ROE WERE REVERSED?
Abortion would not automatically become illegal. Rather, the people and their elected representatives would be allowed to begin enacting abortion policies that respect the lives of both women and their unborn children. The move away from the Court’s policy of virtually unlimited abortion would likely be gradual, leading to improvements in cultural attitudes toward women and children and in concrete support for women facing unplanned pregnancies. (TOP)
WOULD THIS MEAN A RETURN TO DANGEROUS “BACK ALLEY” ABORTIONS?
No. Claims that thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions at the time of Roe were fabricated for political purposes, as a chief strategist later admitted. Due to the development of antibiotics and other medical advances, maternal deaths from all abortions (legal and illegal) dropped from 1,231 in 1942 to 70 in 1972, the year before Roe. Medicine has made more advances in the last thirty years, and women can be offered options that are safer for them and their children than abortion.
WHY ARE ABORTION ADVOCATES SO STRONGLY COMMITTED TO RETAINING ROE?
Roe v. Wade is increasingly recognized as bad law, bad medicine, and bad social policy. Most Americans object to an unlimited right to abortion. Therefore such a policy can be kept in place only by extraordinary life support — by insisting that Roe is untouchable, regardless of the evidence. Abortion advocates know that any return of this issue to the democratic process would produce a very different policy from what the Court created. But false judicial doctrines do not have a right to live. Human beings do. (TOP)
Stem Cell Research
Isn’t the harm done in embryonic stem cell research outweighed by the potential benefits?
First, the false assumption that a good end can justify direct killing has been the source of much evil in our world. This utilitarian ethic has especially disastrous consequences when used to justify lethal experiments on fellow human beings in the name of progress. No commitment to a hoped-for “greater good” can erase or diminish the wrong of directly taking innocent human lives here and now. In fact, policies undermining our respect for human life can only endanger the vulnerable patients that stem cell research offers to help. The same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging other human beings considered more deserving or productive. The suffering of patients and families affected by devastating illness deserves our compassion and our committed response, but not at the cost of our respect for life itself. (TOP)
How can embryonic stem cell research be wrong since what is destroyed is not a human life, or at least not a human being with fundamental human rights?
Second, some claim that the embryo in his or her first week of development is too small, immature, or undeveloped to be considered a “human life.” Yet the human embryo, from conception onward, is as much a living member of the human species as any of us. As a matter of biological fact, this new living organism has the full complement of human genes and is actively expressing those genes to live and develop in a way that is unique to human beings, setting the essential foundation for further development. Though dependent in many ways, the embryo is a complete and distinct member of the species Homo sapiens, who develops toward maturity by directing his or her own integrated organic functioning. All later stages of life are steps in the history of a human being already in existence. Just as each of us was once an adolescent, a child, a newborn infant, and a child in the womb, each of us was once an embryo.
Others, while acknowledging the scientific fact that the embryo is a living member of the human species, claim that life at this earliest stage is too weak or undeveloped, too lacking in mental or physical abilities, to have full human worth or human rights. But to claim that our rights depend on such factors is to deny that human beings have human dignity, that we have inherent value simply by being members of the human family. If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong. As believers who recognize each human life as the gift of an infinitely loving God, we insist that every human being, however small or seemingly insignificant, matters to God—hence everyone, no matter how weak or small, is of concern to us. (TOP)
Why is the dissecting of human embryos for their cells seen as involving a loss of embryonic life?
The respect for embryonic life is not only a teaching of the Catholic Church. Our nation’s Declaration of Independence took for granted that human beings are unequal in size, strength, and intelligence. Yet it declared that members of the human race who are unequal in all these respects are created equal in their fundamental rights, beginning with the right to life. Tragically, this principle of equal human rights for all has not always been followed in practice, even by the Declaration’s signers. But in our nation’s proudest moments Americans have realized that we cannot dismiss or exclude any class of humanity—that basic human rights must belong to all members of the human race without distinction. In light of modern knowledge about the continuity of human development from conception onwards, all of us—without regard to religious affiliation—confront this challenge again today when we make decisions about human beings at the embryonic stage of development.
Finally, some claim that scientists who kill embryos for their stem cells are not actually depriving anyone of life, because they are using “spare” or unwanted embryos who will die anyway. This argument is simply invalid. Ultimately each of us will die, but that gives no one a right to kill us. Our society does not permit lethal experiments on terminally ill patients or condemned prisoners on the pretext that they will soon die anyway. Likewise, the fact that an embryonic human being is at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents gives no individual or government a right to directly kill that human being first. (TOP)
Immigration
Regarding immigration, where does the Church stand?
The Church recognizes that Catholics have room to exercise prudential judgment in immigration policy, but she also reminds Catholic voters that important moral principles are at stake with respect to this issue. The Church summons all people to demonstrate respect for the law and recognize the need for our nation to maintain control of its borders. At the same time, the Church also teaches the virtues of justice, compassion, and mercy, especially as they apply to people who have come mostly from impoverished circumstances to make a better life for themselves and their families. The Church believes that a solution can be reached that is faithful both to our Catholic principles and to the rule of law, and fair to those across the globe waiting to come to the United States legally. (TOP)
Many immigrants are in the United State illegally. Are the bishops disregarding the rule of law regarding immigration?
The U .S. bishops and the teachings of the Catholic Church have consistently respected the right of the sovereign to control its borders, as well as the rule of civil law. However, the Church, along with other members of our democratic society, has the right to work to change laws which are believed to violate basic human dignity, dignity imbued by the Creator. In the case of immigration, the U.S. bishops believe that the broken U.S. immigration system contributes to the exploitation of migrant workers in the workplace; their abuse by ruthless smugglers; and their deaths in the desert as they seek to find work to support their families. They come illegally because there are insufficient visas under the current system to come legally. Our system contains only 5,000 permanent visas for unskilled laborers to come to the United States, but the demand for their work is much higher, since as many as 300,000 undocumented people each year are absorbed into the U.S. workforce. Comprehensive immigration reform, which the U.S. bishops support, would replace illegality with a system based on legal presence and legal entry, thus restoring the rule of law to a chaotic system while also protecting the basic dignity, and lives, of our fellow brothers and sisters. (TOP)
What is the Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration?
The Catholic Catechism teaches that in the realm of immigration law all governments have two essential duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, consistent with its other obligations to the common good. The right to immigrate is a therefore a qualified, rather than an absolute right. Nevertheless, all nations and especially financially blessed nations are called to make every possible effort to assist persons who are compelled by their circumstances to migrate. As the Catechism states:
“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”(CCC 2241)
In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops emphasized and affirmed the Catechism’s teaching on immigration in a pastoral letter on migration entitled, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, “When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right …More powerful economic nations…have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.” (TOP)
Death Penalty
What is the Church teaching on the death penalty?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” #2267
In his encyclical, The Gospel of Life , Pope John Paul II states, “It is clear for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. The Gospel of Life, #48 (TOP)
Same Sex Marriage
What is marriage?
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).
These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture. (TOP)
What does our faith tell us about marriage?
Marriage comes from the loving hand of God, who fashioned both male and female in the divine image (see Gn 1:27). A man "leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (Gn 2:24). The man recognizes the woman as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gn 2:23). God blesses the man and woman and commands them to "be fertile and multiply" (Gn 1:28). Jesus reiterates these teachings from Genesis, saying, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh'" (Mk 10:6-8).
These biblical passages help us to appreciate God's plan for marriage. It is an intimate union in which the spouses give themselves, as equal persons, completely and lovingly to one another. By their mutual gift of self, they cooperate with God in bringing children to life and in caring for them.
Marriage is both a natural institution and a sacred union because it is rooted in the divine plan for creation. In addition, the Church teaches that the valid marriage of baptized Christians is a sacrament—a saving reality. Jesus Christ made marriage a symbol of his love for his Church (see Eph 5:25-33). This means that a sacramental marriage lets the world see, in human terms, something of the faithful, creative, abundant, and self-emptying love of Christ. A true marriage in the Lord with his grace will bring the spouses to holiness. Their love, manifested in fidelity, passion, fertility, generosity, sacrifice, forgiveness, and healing, makes known God's love in their family, communities, and society. This Christian meaning confirms and strengthens the human value of a marital union (see CCC, nos. 1612-1617; 1641-1642). (TOP)
Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?
The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).
In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.
Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?
For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage. (TOP)
Why is it so important to society that marriage be preserved as the exclusive union of a man and a woman?
Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.
Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.
The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.
Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.
When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.
Does denying marriage to homosexual persons demonstrate unjust discrimination and a lack of respect for them as persons?
It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church urges that homosexual persons "be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (no. 2358). It also encourages chaste friendships. "Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all" (no. 2347). (TOP)
Should persons who live in same-sex relationships be entitled to some of the same social and economic benefits given to married couples?
The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life.
The legal recognition of marriage, including the benefits associated with it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society. It would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage.
Some benefits currently sought by persons in homosexual unions can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent. (TOP)
In light of the Church's teaching about the truth and beauty of marriage, what should Catholics do?
There is to be no separation between one's faith and life in either public or private realms. All Catholics should act on their beliefs with a well-formed conscience based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. They should be a community of conscience within society. By their voice and their vote, they should contribute to society's welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason and Gospel truth. Responsible citizenship is a virtue. Participation in the political process is a moral obligation. This is particularly urgent in light of the need to defend marriage and to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages.
Married couples themselves, by the witness of their faithful, life-giving love, are the best advocates for marriage. By their example, they are the first teachers of the next generation about the dignity of marriage and the need to uphold it. As leaders of their family—which the Second Vatican Council called a "domestic church" (Lumen Gentium, no. 11)—couples should bring their gifts as well as their needs to the larger Church. There, with the help of other couples and their pastors and collaborators, they can strengthen their commitment and sustain their sacrament over a lifetime. (TOP)
Public Policy
Are all public policy issues equally important to Catholics?
No. While most political issues have a moral dimension, there are a select number of issues currently being debated that directly involve matters of intrinsic moral evil: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and same-sex marriage. The unique gravity of these issues does not diminish the importance of other concerns, but it does require that Catholics give them precedence. As Cardinal Ratzinger explained before he became Pope Benedict XVI: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia…There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” (TOP)
Does that mean Catholics can disagree over most other political issues?
Yes. Unlike those previously mentioned public policies that allow actions which are intrinsically evil and which all Catholics are always morally obliged to oppose, most other issues require Catholics to exercise their own “prudential judgment” to determine what policies they believe will be best. In these cases, Catholics can ethically reach different conclusions, as long as their preferred approach is consistent with our beliefs as Catholics.
Why did the Catholic Church, which has long supported reform of our nation’s health care system, oppose the health care legislation?
Because it opens the door to taxpayer financing of abortion, fails to respect conscience rights, and is deficient in its treatment of immigrants. The new law uses federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions, a departure from 30 years of federal policy. Perhaps worse, the law will also force some Americans to pay directly for other people’s abortions even if they are morally opposed: each enrollee in plans that decide to cover abortion will be forced to pay a separate payment specifically for abortion, regardless of whether a particular person ever has an abortion. (TOP)
The courts now control many of the issues important to me, including the legality of abortion, so does it even matter if I vote?
Yes. As we have just seen, elected officials still have significant influence over abortion policy even if the courts have taken ultimate control of the issue out of the hands of the democratic process. Aside from the fact that many races for elective office often come down to a small number of votes, elections matter in ways many citizens do not often consider. For instance, the governor often appoints judges to fill S judicial terms.
Further down the ballot, mayors, city councils, county commissions, and school boards often decide upon local policies that have an important moral dimension. Moreover, gaining election to these posts often helps candidates position themselves for higher office.
Finally, North Carolina state judges are subject to elections. (TOP)
Additional Links:
Faithful citizenship
The role of Catholics in public life
Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church
