Kaine's abortion stance an affront to reason, archbishop says [CNA]


Kansas City, Kan., Oct 19, 2016 / 04:54 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Vice presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine’s stand in favor of legal abortion shuns consistency in reason and faith and ignores the pain abortion causes, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas has said.

“It was painful to listen to Senator Kaine repeat the same tired and contorted reasoning to profess his personal opposition to abortion while justifying his commitment to keep it legal,” the archbishop said, reflecting on Kaine’s abortion comments in the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate. He characterized the senator’s remarks as “the usual made-for-modern-media sound bites.”

Writing in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas’ newspaper The Leaven Oct. 14, Archbishop Naumann critiqued the senator’s “sound bite” comment that “it is not proper to impose his religious beliefs upon all Americans.”

“With regard to the imposition of religious beliefs, Senator Kaine appears to have no qualms with his public positions conforming with his religious beliefs with regard to such issues as the church’s opposition to racism or our preferential option for the poor.”

“He appears not to be conflicted with our public policies mirroring the Ten Commandments with regard to stealing, perjury, or forms of murder, other than abortion.”

In the Oct. 4 debate, Kaine professed support for Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court decision that mandated legal abortion nationwide. He said he supported “the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy.”

The archbishop commented, “It is difficult to imagine that Senator Kaine has not seen the ultrasound images of his children and grandchildren when they were in their mother’s womb. Is the senator unaware that abortion stopped the beating hearts of 60 million American children aborted legally since 1973?”

Archbishop Naumann asked, “Does anyone really have the choice to end another human being’s life? Our choices end where another individual’s more fundamental rights begin.”

The archbishop also questioned Kaine’s stand on conscience, given his support for forcing taxpayers to fund abortion and his support for rules that would coerce the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilizations in their health plans.

Kaine said it was not the role of a public servant who is a religious believer to mandate “the commands of your faith.”

Archbishop Naumann countered that although religion speaks about fundamental human rights, the right to life is not based in religion.

“As the Founders stated, these are self-evident truths. They are accessible to everyone through the use of reason. They do not require faith,” the archbishop said, adding that the American Founding Fathers “actually believed that the right to life is given to us by our Creator, not by the Supreme Court.”

The archbishop said that the senator was inconsistent in citing his religion, given that he follows Catholicism’s opposition to racism and preference for the poor.

“He appears not to be conflicted with our public policies mirroring the Ten Commandments with regard to stealing, perjury, or forms of murder, other than abortion,” he added.

In the debate, Kaine countered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s early comments, later retracted, that women should be punished for having an abortion.

“Before Roe v. Wade, states could pass criminal laws… to punish women if they made the choice to terminate a pregnancy,” Kaine said.

According to Archbishop Naumann, decades of legal history show that this was “certainly not the case.”

“The laws were enforced against the abortionists,” he said. “Our own legal experience shows clearly that it is possible to develop public policies aimed at protecting children, not punishing women.”

Full article…


Perhaps we should make it illegal to miss Mass on Sunday, or to eat meat on Fridays in Lent, or to not contribute to the upkeep of the local church.

The majority of the population of the US is non-Catholic. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and yes, atheists. They each have their own belief about when life begins. Would the bishop approve if a Muslim candidate declared he was going to impose Sharia law? No? But he’s very happy to impose Catholic law on Muslims? Anyone see a problem?


I don’t see a problem because anyone can know that life begins at conception without any religious reference at all. Kaine’s argument may have fooled you, but not anyone with a minimal knowledge of biology who seeks the truth.


Am I entitled to my own belief about when your life begins? I wonder how you’d feel if it were your life in question?

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading


What living organism is entirely self-reliant? Rip a tree out of the soil and it dies. Drop an adult human being into outer space and he/she will die. Take a fish out of water and it dies. All of these things were undeniably living before they were taken out of the atmosphere needed for life.

But rip a baby that is growing, developing, ingesting nutrients out his/her mother’s womb and then it’s “whose to say when life begins?”. Well…it certainly seems clear in every other case.

Be that as it may, instead of concerning yourself with things that never happened, you should be concerned with what is happening: taxpayer funded abortions (you think that isn’t violating individual conscience or coercing people into a religious belief?), laws forbidding faithful Christians to live out their faith. That isn’t disconcerting to you?

Your examples of some sort of extreme theocracy are being played out right now except in the opposite direction.



God Bless You



Standing up against the taking of human life is an issue which affects us all, not just Catholics.
Laws against abortion in the U.S. are not Catholic per se.
The Declaration of Independence describes the right to life as self evident, and the majority of those who signed it were not Catholic.
Laws against murder are not specifically Catholic, or Protestant, or athiest. They uphold a moral standard for the community, and when a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, or or Buddist or athiest commits murder, that person is in violation of the law.


Thank you for speaking out Archbishop Joseph Naumann!


Fascinating replies. They ranged from wildly inaccurate to…maybe just “wild.”

So if I believe X, and other people believe Y, and yet other people believe Z, basically you’re saying “X must be correct because I believe it. And I therefore have the right to impose my views on everyone else, no matter what they believe.”

Muslims believe life begins when you feel movement in the womb. A lot of people believe life begins at birth. Others believe life begins when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. There are all sorts of variations. All have scientific / medical justification. All are believed by people of good will.

So it seems that you are all quite willing to impose your own morality on everyone else, no matter what. Whatever happened to that clause in the Constitution about establishment of religion? I guess in the immortal words of Ron Zigler, that clause is “inoperative.”

Again, I would ask you to consider how you would feel if the tables were turned and another religion (or no religion) imposed their morality on you. One person said I should be more worried about “extreme theocracy” in “the other direction.” Why yes, of course I’m worried about that. But you know what? Because county A does something wrong, that doesn’t mean the US has to follow suit and do something wrong too! We should be an example–a good example!


No, not at all. Human life is human life, unless you have your own definition of it. If you ‘had’ to guess, how do you think the babies would vote on this?


Hillary is for legalizing partial birth abortion. The pictures prove it is murder of a small child.


Hi Erikaspirit16,
To take the life of another is quite the imposition. That fact is being pointed out by Archbishop Naumann. In a society, imposing upon others to some degree does occur (we can’t all run that red light at the same time, and we learn to wait our turn, even if we are in a hurry).
However, as Archbishop Naumann notes:

"Of course, religion will speak about fundamental human rights issues. However, to understand that the government has a right to protect human life is not dependent on religious belief. As the founders’ stated, these are self-evident truths. They are accessible to everyone through the use of reason. They do not require faith.

Why is Senator Kaine personally opposed to abortion, if he does not believe that it is the taking of an innocent human life? I hope in his science classes at Rockhurst he learned that at the moment of fertilization a new human life has begun with his or her own distinct DNA — different from the genetic code of both the child’s mother and father.

It is difficult to imagine that Senator Kaine has not seen the ultrasound images of his children and grandchildren when they were in their mother’s womb. Is the senator unaware that abortion stopped the beating hearts of 60 million American children aborted legally since 1973?

If he knows these truths of biology, why would he believe that anyone has the right to authorize the killing of an unborn human being? This is where the reproductive choice euphemism breaks apart. Does anyone really have the choice to end another human being’s life? Our choices end where another individual’s more fundamental rights begin.
The italics are added and I wonder if you might enjoy perusing the web link to read the entiere letter from the Archbishop?

It wasn’t that many years ago that, in the country of Rwanda, many Hutus engaged in genocidal activity against the Tutsi. It was argued that the Tutsi were less worthy of life and hundreds of thousands were killed and many more fled to become refugees.
Eventually, a pro life morality was imposed upon those engaged in genocide and the genocide stopped.
If you take this example as a thought experiment, you might find it easier to understand that imposing a pro life morality can have life saving implications, and perhaps, for the Tutsi, and perhaps for the Hutu, such an imposition might be a good thing.
May God bless you.


I am talking about a religion: liberal progressivism. The democrat platform, plots by Clinton’s high ranking campaign to sow discord within the the Church, the EEOC and Civil Rights Commission directors advocating for deeming the living out of one’s faith a hate crime, tax payer funded abortion…we’re not talking about the imposition of morality, we’re talking about people who intend to make morality illegal.




Excellent statement.




This in not merely a religious question, but also a scientific one.

It is scientific fact that a new, unique human life starts at conception. It is observable, repeatable fact. The conclusion that life begins at conception follows the scientific method.

Every human being if they followed their life back though time, would end up at the beginning of their life: when the sperm and egg combined.

Even medical schools teach this. Do you think they are teaching science or religion?

Perhaps a white paper on the subject might be enlightening:

Or perhaps a quote from a Nobel Prize winner on the subject:

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being…[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence…” - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981


From a strictly scientific view, one can say that an unfertilized egg is also alive, since it only has the potential to become a human. It does not have the potential to become anything else. So it is more human than anything else. And if you complain that it is only “potential” life since it will not develop unless fertilized by a sperm, you would have to recognize that even a fertilized egg is also only a “potential” life form, since there are many additional things that must happen to that egg before it can grow, including absorbing critical chemicals and implanting in the uterus. The only scientifically unique thing that happens at conception is the precise combination of traits, like hair color and susceptibility to disease. So if you want to say “hair color begins at conception”, that can be scientifically supported. But “life begins at conception” is not a precise scientific term.

BTW, I do firmly believe that life does begin at conception.


No, scientifically speaking, you could NOT say that an unfertilized egg is alive.

Life, scientifically speaking, has 7 characteristics:

  1. responsiveness to the environment;
  2. growth and change;
  3. ability to reproduce;
  4. have a metabolism and breathe;
  5. maintain homeostasis;
  6. being made of cells; and.
  7. passing traits onto offspring.

An unfertilized egg has only 1, arguably 2 of these traits. On the other hand, at conception, all 7 characteristics are met.


I get the point you are trying to make, and understand you believe life begins at conception. In response to your points I would counter with the following:

  1. How many adults or children today grew from an unfertilized egg? 0
  2. How many chromosomes does an egg have? 23
  3. How many chromosomes does a sperm have? 23
  4. How many chromosomes does a child or adult have? 46
  5. The “impreciseness” of “life begins at conception” is a very small window from the time the sperm enters the egg, and the time the diploid zygote is created.
    (points 2-4 assume a healthy human…I realize there are conditions / syndromes that would add an “asterisk” to my points)

I’m not a biologist or doctor (I’m an engineer by degree), so I have to trust experts in the field (Like Dr. LeJeune or Dr. Maureen Condic).

Ultimately, its a science question. The person to whom I was responding is confusing the science question of “When does life begin?”, with an ethical / moral / religious question “When should we confer rights upon a human life?”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.