Mark Shea makes this argument... and while I agree with him, there is something vexing about the whole issue.
Listen to the discussion at the "9:05 mark":
Does this stance essentially disqualify Catholics from holding national political office? What I mean is, that due to the small number of people that believe contraception is morally wrong, can a Catholic have hold this view and still be elected? I wonder if it doesn't just do that - effectively eliminate them as candidates in most races. I mean, if people ask why they don't support medical health care coverage of "The Pill" the argument then goes into the philosophy and theology of that statement. Does it create such an appearance of "extremism" that few candidates could overcome it?
I wonder if Shea makes a distinction between non-medical contraception (condoms et al) and "The Pill"? I wonder if he would argue that all contraception is off-limits to a Catholic's vote, I personally think this is an all or nothing proposition.
I have thoughts and ideas on this, I just want to throw it out there and get some reactions. What do you think about these questions:
- Must Catholic politicians oppose the public funding of Contraceptive services, especially "The Pill"?
- If so, does this stance essentially eliminate them as viable candidates because of the publics overwhelming support & use of contraception?
See you in the Comments below...
†††
1 Comments so far - Click to Comment::
Ummm. As you may recall, our federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. I would argue that any Senator, Catholic or otherwise, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. And because the power to lay taxes to provide for contraception is NOWHERE to be found in the enumerated powers of Art. I, s. 8, it stands to reason that any prudent Senator can refrain from providing contraception on the grounds of his oath, if not otherwise.
Post a Comment