So the Pro-Life movement has been full of contradictions and going halfway in attempting to avoid the logical conclusion of their beliefs, trying to avoid it’s consequences. Although their position is that abortion is a form of murder; their actions and beliefs betray the fact that they really don’t take the idea of abortion seriously at all.
I’ll leave my position on it to another:
Now Trump has flip-flopped and given dodgy, ambiguous answers as to his personal conviction on abortion, but what I found interesting is his interview by a Catholic Chris Matthews.
Now Chris Matthews in this interview is proof that one cannot serve two masters and shows that being a consistent Catholic would put one in contradiction with the ideals of a Liberal Democracy (The United States), and that in the end a person will eventually end up favoring one over the other.
If you listen to the complete exchange — not just the clip that was repeated on television yesterday — Trump spent a lot of time grilling Matthews about his religious beliefs regarding abortion. As if they mattered.
Matthews, a Catholic, made clear he’s personally pro-life, in line with the Church’s teachings, but he added that he’s politically pro-choice since he thinks women should be able to make their own decisions on the matter.
His Church doesn’t control their lives.
An example of the abomination of separation between church and state, which only marginalizes religion to the point of uselessness and subjects the church to the state. If Matthews adhered to his religion, then he would concede that abortion is murder.
And the Patheos writer is correct, the Church doesn’t control their lives, the State does, and in terms of morality State trumps Religion.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life, meaning that you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about my religion.
TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your Church?
MATTHEWS: I have a view — a moral view — but I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.
TRUMP: But then you are…
MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive.
TRUMP: I know but I’ve heard you speaking…
MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t able — one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with
So he has the Liberal belief that people should live the life that they want and that other people should not impose their beliefs on others, so a person who commits abortion should not be stopped if they wish to do so, even if he himself is opposed to it. By his line of logic, although murdering ( unlawful non-abortion killings) another human being is against his beliefs, people should still have the freedom to kill others since preventing people from murdering each other would destroy this free country and make it fascist!
Yet if you were to ask any person today as to their opinion on murder, they would say regardless of anybody’s personal beliefs on murder, it should be binding on everyone and be illegal, and that those who plan on carrying it out should be stopped and prevented in any way possible from doing so. Yet when the pro-lifers who consider abortion to be a type of murder are pressed with his idea they shirk and say that somehow the woman is an innocent victim and that the abortion doctor or father is solely at fault.
If abortion is truly murder, then the act of a woman procuring an abortion by going to a doctor is akin to a person who hires a hitman to murder another person for them! We all understand that in the second scenario, that the person who hired the killer is just as guilty as the one who carried out the act!
Matthews has the worldview of a typical conservative, who is stuck between two opposing worldviews yet cannot pick a line in the sand to decide on, and thinks that by being indecisive and muddleheaded he is being “moderate” or “balanced.” Conservatism is an indefensible and impossible position for those who are not conclusive in their thoughts, since the ideals of tradition and revolution are in contradiction with one another.
MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.
TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.
Yup. The People are more important than God. God’s laws can be put into consideration, but at the end of the day, The People who constitute the majority decide what is right.
Matthews’ position is not hypocritical. It’s just a simple application of church/state separation. Just because your faith compels you to act a certain way doesn’t mean everyone else should be forced to do the same thing.
Trump couldn’t grasp that concept. He couldn’t fathom how someone could claim to be a devout Catholic… yet advocate for a position that didn’t align with Catholic principles.
If Abortion is a form of murder, then why don’t people treat it with the same amount of importance and severity? The separation of church and state (which is not identical with the Catholic idea of a distinction between church and state) was simply born of an idea to subjugate the powers of the church to the state, although Catholic Christendom did the opposite, where the state submits to the church the same way the body submits to the soul.
Let’s read what Pope Leo XIII has to say on the matter:
13. In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result — namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church.
Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion –it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.
It should be obvious by now by how Liberal Republics were designed to completely oppose the previous order of Christendom and to render the State completely divorced from the Church and to create a society where human Will supersedes God, and where the Secular State is the sovereign over all.
And Matthews is just one example of a person who has chosen The City of Man over The City of God, and the will of the People over the decrees of God.
Edit: I would also like to mention in the debate between Trump and Matthews, the latter attempts to justify the dissonance that Trump calls him out on with the contradictions between his faith and his political views by claiming “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” from the Bible. Either Matthews is ignorant, or simply attempting to justify his weak position in choosing Liberty over Christianity. Yes, as a citizen of The United States (Caesar) you must pay your taxes and drive on the right side of the road, but as a Christian you have no reason to obey an immoral law even by a legitimate authority.
This is quite evident even to those who profess no religion. If the state were to grant a new law allowing murder and rape to be legalized, all sane people would be outraged, and find that law to be illegitimate since it is not grounded on morality. I’m sure that people like Matthews would rightfully be outraged at such insanity. Yet this is exactly what is happening with legalized abortion in this country, and that the people who claim to oppose it simply do not perceive the abortion issue to be as serious as if the country were to legalize murder and rape.
Also imagine a scenario where murder and rape were to suddenly be legalized in this country, you explain to a person how insane and evil that is, and they respond by agreeing with you but then state that, “this is a free country and although I personally am opposed to murder and rape people should have the freedom to live the life that they choose, and that the majority vote from the people in our next election should decide whether this law should be repealed or not.”
So then although you know some bad neighbors and people out there are committing murder and rape, you can rest knowing that you and your family privately forbid murder and rape off the basis of your religion and morality in peace and be proud in the fact that your not shoving your beliefs down anybody else’s throat because really telling other people how to live their lives like how murder and rape are bad and should be universally illegal regardless of individual opinions is fascism and intolerant!
Oh, and if you disagree then you are opposed to the idea of a free country and support fascism and oppression of individuals.