Are cafeteria Catholics a different religion since they hold to a different definition of what it means to be Catholic?

[polytropos]

Most Catholics that agree with the legality of abortion, do not agree with the moral right to have an abortion. Given the split between religion and the state, moral rights and legal rights are not essentially identical.

Some Catholics simply don’t agree with legally forcing a woman to give birth, even if they don’t believe in the moral right to have an abortion.

Moral and legal rights are not identical, and some Catholics certainly do hold such a position, but to do so is logically inconsistent. One, ostensibly, holds that women do not have the moral right to have an abortion because it is murder (intentional, unjustified killing).

If abortion is murder and abortion is legal, then one should believe that abortion should be illegal. The opposite position (If abortion is murder and abortion is legal, then one should believe that abortion should remain legal.) can only be held if one is willing to hold the analogous position: If murder were legal, then one should believe that murder should stay legal. But that is nonsensical. We are morally obliged to oppose state-sanctioned murder.

From the Catholic standpoint, abortion is immoral because it is murder and so it should be as legal as** murder. “Legal rights” are imperfect social conventions, and although they are not and never will be identical to actual moral rights, it would always be better for legal rights to more closely approximate moral rights.

 

[Portofino]

Moral and legal rights are not identical, and some Catholics certainly do hold such a position, but to do so is logically inconsistent. One, ostensibly, holds that women do not have the moral right to have an abortion because it is murder (intentional, unjustified killing).

If abortion is murder and abortion is legal, then one should believe that abortion should be illegal. The opposite position (If abortion is murder and abortion is legal, then one should believe that abortion should remain legal.) can only be held if one is willing to hold the analogous position: If murder were legal, then one should believe that murder should stay legal. But that is nonsensical.

I think your argument here is being formulated at a level of abstraction that is different from that of the Catholic who, more pragmatically, is making the distinction between what is morally wrong and what is practicable to be legally prohibited.

Obviously, there are a great many things that are considered morally wrong, that are not practicable to make illegal. Making suicide illegal would be one such example; another would be to make adultery illegal (at least, not in a society that did not resemble a police state). Making masturbation illegal would be even more quixotic, and probably would require in-house video surveillance, if there were a true zeal to enforce it (“Big Brother is watching”).

If one believes that abortion is murder but that it is not practicable to legally prohibit it, one is obviously making a pragmatic argument. Your argument, on the other hand, is abstract and* a priori * – if abortion as a form of murder is legal, then all forms of murder would have to be legal, logically speaking. You are speaking from an abstract moral principle – and from logical consistency – but the pragmatic argument focuses on context and circumstance, as it interfaces with these abstract moral principles.

Again, suicide is murder (murder of self) – yet it is not practicable to render a suicide attempt a felony. Just so, with abortion, there are practical and circumstantial differences that inhibit making its illegal such a simple matter. Foremost among them is the question, “how can you mandate that a woman remain pregnant and give birth, if she does not want to be pregnant?” How can you enforce that, make it work? If she is caught trying to have an abortion, do you put her in a detention center, under 24 hour surveillance – the equivalent of a suicide watch?
If she succeeds in performing an abortion on herself, do you charge her with first degree murder, which can carry the penalty of life in prison?

In the name of logical consistency – if logical consistency were the only consideration – it would be inconsistent for abortion to be considered murder, to be illegal, and yet not be treated, in its illegality, in the exact same way, as regards penalties and formal charges in comparison with other forms of first degree murder.

Yet no one dares talk about life in prison for a woman who has performed an abortion on herself, whereas a woman who would take the life of an infant or a toddler could face life in prison.

The point is that the distinction between what is considered moral, and what is considered legal, is not a simple matter of the logical consistency of moral or legal principles. There is also context – concrete, circumstantial differences, as well as issues of enforceability – both in terms of how to enforce its being illegal in the first place, and how to penalize those who do commit this illegal act.

I hear a lot of talk about principles in the abortion debate – which is not inappropriate – but not enough about practical enforcement, how it is going to work. Will a woman who performs an abortion on herself be considered a felon? If the proposal is to make her a felon, why isn’t this being spoken about more openly? And if abortion is murder, how can a woman who performs an abortion on herself not be considered a felon?

Or is it the doctors who are the felons…except in cases where the abortion is self-performed, as it is more likely to be precisely in cases where abortion is criminalized?

An issue like abortion cannot fruitfully be discussed, I think, solely in terms of a priori morality, or logical consistency (politics, alas, is not pure philosophy). Pragmatic questions, questions of enforceability, and of penalty, would also have to be discussed openly.

 

[polytropos]

Obviously, there are a great many things that are considered morally wrong, that are not practicable to make illegal. Making suicide illegal would be one such example; another would be to make adultery illegal (at least, not in a society that did not resemble a police state). Making masturbation illegal would be even more quixotic, and probably would require in-house video surveillance, if there were a true zeal to enforce it (“Big Brother is watching”).

Well, as far as civil laws go, I would tend to advance those that protect not just the self but others. So I may find adultery, masturbation, missing Church on Sunday, etc. immoral, but I would not propose them for civil law because the offended parties are the sinner and God. Suicide is a slightly separate case in that it is frequently accompanied by mental illness, although again, it is a crime against oneself.

Abortion is a crime against another human being (as well as against the sinner and God). It is not, as the rhetoric goes, only about a woman’s choice. About 50 million children have died since Roe v. Wade; that constitutes genocide. There are certainly practical considerations, but the compelling interest is still to find a way to prevent the mass murder of human beings.

In any case, it is still important to discuss the immorality of abortion. Supporters of abortion make practical arguments about abortion, but primarily they are advocating it as a fundamental component of reproductive rights. I would have very little issue if the world would concede that abortion is immoral and unfavorable, though difficult to phase out in many respects; then the discussion could be directed towards making society better. But supporters of abortion are not conceding that.

Yet no one dares talk about life in prison for a woman who has performed an abortion on herself, whereas a woman who would take the life of an infant or a toddler could face life in prison.
…
I hear a lot of talk about principles in the abortion debate – which is not inappropriate – but not enough about practical enforcement, how it is going to work. Will a woman who performs an abortion on herself be considered a felon? If the proposal is to make her a felon, why isn’t this being spoken about more openly? And if abortion is murder, how can a woman who performs an abortion on herself not be considered a felon?

An issue like abortion cannot fruitfully be discussed, I think, solely in terms of a priori morality, or logical consistency (politics, alas, is not pure philosophy). Pragmatic questions, questions of enforceability, and of penalty, would also have to be discussed openly.

Well, it would certainly be unpopular in the public sphere to propose that abortion would have criminal consequences. But it remains a double standard: a woman who has an abortion is committing the same crime as the woman who smothers her toddler. We’ve become rather attached to abortion, which is what makes speaking about it difficult.

In terms of what is practical to pursue now, I think discussion of criminalization would destroy the movement. The availability and advertising of abortion should be reduced; it should not be advanced in the public sphere (through, for example, swaths of funding to Planned Parenthood) as a neutral civil right. The President should not make speeches about reproductive rights in which he does not mention the word “abortion.” Certainly there won’t be justice while ideological strictures are in place.

 

[Portofino]

Well, it would certainly be unpopular in the public sphere to propose that abortion would have criminal consequences. But it remains a double standard: a woman who has an abortion is committing the same crime as the woman who smothers her toddler. We’ve become rather attached to abortion, which is what makes speaking about it difficult.QUOTE]

OK; I appreciate your candor on that point. I could imagine a society in which the criminalization of abortion were ideally enforced, but it would look like a very different society than the one we currently live in. As I see it, ideal enforcement – measured by the standards of constituting the most effective, most uncompromising means of preventing an abortion from occurring – might involve (and I won’t deny that the idea is abhorrent to me, and probably is to many foes of abortion, as well):

—Detention centers for those women who are caught trying to procure an abortion (thus, caught in the act of attempted murder), where women are kept under close guard until such time as they have given birth.

–Once they have given birth, it is an open question as to whether she is permitted to keep her child, or whether that child is handed over to the state, which – in turn – hands the child over to an adoption agency (not sure it would make sense for a woman to be convicted of the attempted murder of her unborn child, yet be allowed to retain custody of the child once it is born)

–Additionally, once they have given birth, there may be additional criminal charges, including a long probationary period (regular check-ups, perhaps, to ensure that she is not pregnant again or that she does not show signs of having procured an abortion).

If the abortion was successful, there are questions of criminal charges in terms of whether she would be charged with first degree murder, and face a lengthy prison sentence. Even the free, “over the counter” availability of pregnancy tests would have to be cracked down upon; if a woman wants to know whether she is pregnant, she would have to see a licensed medical professional, not take a home pregnancy test.

Of course, law and order is always easier, when a society is comparatively more authoritarian… And you can be sure that there would be an outcry against such measures by women, not to mention their loved ones.

One possibility for the future – removal of the fetus from the uterus of an unwilling mother, to be gestated in an artificial environment, or in the body of another willing surrogate (though there likely would be separate objections to this, on religious grounds). In other words, giving the child “up for adoption” – not after 9 months of pregnancy and giving birth, but immediately. The problem of an unwanted pregnancy – and whether the state has the right to mandate that women remain pregnant, against their will – would thereby be closer to being solved.

 

[polytropos]

I could imagine a society in which the criminalization of abortion were ideally enforced, but it would look like a very different society than the one we currently live in. As I see it, ideal enforcement – measured by the standards of constituting the most effective, most uncompromising means of preventing an abortion from occurring – might involve (and I won’t deny that the idea is abhorrent to me, and probably is to many foes of abortion, as well):

etc.

If the abortion was successful, there are questions of criminal charges in terms of whether she would be charged with first degree murder, and face a lengthy prison sentence. Even the free, “over the counter” availability of pregnancy tests would have to be cracked down upon; if a woman wants to know whether she is pregnant, she would have to see a licensed medical professional, not take a home pregnancy test.

Of course, law and order is always easier, when a society is comparatively more authoritarian… And you can be sure that there would be an outcry against such measures by women, not to mention their loved ones.

Such measures would be necessary if we could sit down right now and rewrite the law. And really, how could they not be? Half of the country is ideologically opposed to the criminalization of abortion. One only has to read the New York Times or visit a liberal college campus to see how a large chunk of the country speaks about abortion as a self-evident, de facto right. If it were criminalized today, then much of that part of the country would try to get around the law rather than practice chastity or willingly become parents of children they don’t want to raise. I admit that such changes could only occur after a long period of time, over which other graduated progress would have to be made and opinions would have to change. I don’t mean that criminalization of abortion would need complete support, but the criminalization would practically have to follow other measures like banning abortion after 16 (…12…8…) weeks, limiting availability and funding, preventing euphemistic “advertising” to minors. As the time period and availability of abortion becomes more protracted, people would be less “reliant” on it - to a degree.

We allow abortion because we have an entrenched, misguided attitude about human rights. Enacting definitive legislation on abortion would not be possible without the police-like state you propose as long as that attitude is around. But, again, abortion is genocide and our goal should be to move toward a society in which genocide does not occur.

The “cafeteria Catholic” still has certain obligations. It is not a matter of saying, “I don’t support abortion personally, but a woman still has right to abortion.” One can acknowledge the difficulties in eliminating abortion - but since it’s not going away tomorrow, in the meantime Catholics should be working towards its abolition. That involves not using complicit language that justifies the slaughter of innocents.

 

[Felasco]

I asked an objective question that is reasonable considering the apparent contradiction of claiming to be Catholic while having a contradictory definition of what it means to be Catholic.

I agree it’s a reasonable, and interesting question.

The answer would seem to depend on how one defines Catholicism.

Some Catholics view Catholicism as a top down experience, with self appointed leaders providing the definitive dogmas others must follow.

Other Catholics view Catholicism as a very large community which is enhanced by a rich variety of related interpretations among the laity.

Officially, Church leaders promote the top down view, but in actual real world practice they seem to welcome the donations and participation of cafeteria Catholics.

If you want someone else to answer this for you, you might be of the top down variety. If you want to answer this for yourself, you might be more of the celebrating rich diversity variety.

 

[Portofino]

We allow abortion because we have an entrenched, misguided attitude about human rights. Enacting definitive legislation on abortion would not be possible without the police-like state you propose as long as that attitude is around.

Recent popes (John Paul II and Benedict) seem to understand this, that a “culture of life” needs to be fostered. Thus, they speak against abortion but also discourage use of the death penalty, as well as speaking out against war (war only after every method of reasonable diplomacy has been exhausted) and against violence in general.

The United States government seems to have no problem with killing – I am not a Chomsky guy, but I would have to say that to call it “the most efficient killing machine in the world” is not an unfair description, in terms of its military might. There is legitimate self-defense, and then there is “strategic offense”, the latter which seems to guide much of our foreign policy (or so it seems). But my point is that, given that the U.S. government so readily takes life – whether in terms of military action that risks collateral damage, or the execution of potentially innocent convicts by the state – it’s in a way not surprising that the state is not constitutionally (no pun intended) against the taking of the lives of the unborn.

Our gun culture is another aspect of the problem, as well as the culture of violence reflected in our movies and video games; these things criss-cross party lines (gun control is a left-wing issue, censorship more of a right-wing one) where each side points the finger at the other, accusing the other of hypocrisy. Both right and left have proclivities towards violence, just in different respects (and Gandhi has stated that “poverty is the worst form of violence”, something probably more frequently quoted on the left).

But a culture of violence in America; materialism; the commoditization of people, whether born or unborn; risking the safety of others for the sake of one’s personal wants (whether it be wanting to have no restrictions on gun ownership, or no restrictions on abortion, or to do nothing about prohibitively expensive healthcare) – this is a part of a much larger phenomenon; a “culture of callousness”?

 

[livingwordunity]

Most Catholics that agree with the legality of abortion, do not agree with the moral right to have an abortion. Given the split between religion and the state, moral rights and legal rights are not essentially identical.

Some Catholics simply don’t agree with legally forcing a woman to give birth, even if they don’t believe in the moral right to have an abortion.

Birth is only the beginning of all that a mother has to sacrifice for her children. So why do they limit their position to just the first nine months? Although they may be technically Catholic, the attitude you describe is still in direct opposition to Catholicism since they deny the basic right to life of the baby.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

There are many today who identify as Catholic but who define what it means to be a good Catholic in a radically different way than what is taught by the Magisterium. For example, calling abortion a right, believing in so-called “same-sex marriage”, etc. These can include Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday. When a Catholic leaves the church and registers in a Protestant denomination they are no longer considered a Catholic. What about when someone has Protestant-like beliefs, rejecting the authority of the Magisterium, but continuing to go through the physical motions of going to Mass every Sunday while believing or at least still claiming they are Catholic? Some of these are prominent politicians who even claim on top of this to be a “Catholic in good standing” while ignoring repeated admonitions from their bishop.

To address your opening post, the Catholics you describe are all but undeclared Protestants. The Church will not push them out the door, but they place themselves outside with their disagreement if not outright rejection of Catholic teachings on abortion and her position on gay “marriage,” as examples you raised.

They wound the Body of Christ with their relativism in varying culpability with knowing or unknowing cooperation with evil. It is disconcerting that some Catholics lip the Lord’s commandment to love and show compassion to our neighbor, forgetting that we have the duty to speak the truth as well in order to bring our neighbor back from error. We refer to the person’s unrepented sinful act or thought, often received as uncharitable on the outset. It is hard to turn away from sin, especially habituated sin. It becomes harder for one to leave sin when he or she is surrounded by others who mistake enabling for charity.

As in our physical world, reasonable people understand and accept Newton’s first law of motion, that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. To analogize, that external force is in the form of truth in charity. Truth and charity together.

There is no claiming that any of us are without sin, and certainly we are not judging the person to eternal damnation in debates in this forum. Any Catholic knows only God has the power to forgive or condemn souls on judgment day.
,

 

[kozlosap]

I only asked the question. I didn’t call for them to be kicked out. Are we not allowed to ever ask questions? Jesus said we have to beware of false prophets who will be among us and who will try to lead us astray. How are we to beware of this if we don’t ask questions when someone claims that seeking an abortion and believing in so-called “same-sex marriage” is compatible with being Catholic?

Thank goodness that in the “real world”, not the forum world, that most holy priests and Catholics don’t believe in a Thought Test for being part of the Body of Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank goodness that in the “real world”, not the forum world, that most holy priests and Catholics don’t believe in a Thought Test for being part of the Body of Christ.

 

[livingwordunity]

Thank goodness that in the “real world”, not the forum world, that most holy priests and Catholics don’t believe in a Thought Test for being part of the Body of Christ.

What do you think we recite the creed at Mass for if it makes no difference what we believe?

 

[LeftyDisciple]

This is incorrect. A Catholic is Catholic by virtue of their Baptism. They may fall away and stop practicing and/or start practicing something else. But they are always considered Catholic.

While you and others might in fact be speaking the true answer from the standpoint of the Catholic Church: That a person baptized in the Catholic Church is always considered Catholic no matter what… CAF “apologist” Fr Serpa emphatically disagrees here. He answers with “No, No. The answer is NO!”
.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8674827&postcount=2

I have been reading this forum for a little while now and have seen others give a similar answer as Fr Serpa. And to be perfectly honest, answers like theirs led me to stop even attending Mass. I decided if even the “apologists” of a Catholic “answers” forum do not recognize what the Catholic Church says and want me to in effect lie and say I am not a Catholic of any sort, then I will just leave the practice altogether. And if God did not want me to be led further away, I would just leave it to them to answer to Him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve seen a ‘few’ of these type threads, that seems to have tones of division. Now, it’s been asked what about the creeds? The creeds are the basic tenants of belief, in the Christian faith. It’s not a statement of promising never to sin, which all of us fail in if it were. The Church is the place of correction, and there are authoritative men over it. All of us, who are in the SAME religion, go there for correction for our sins, that we understand, and don’t always recognize; hence the teaching of invincible ignorance. It is only through our growth in faith that we have possibility to understand the need of correction in our own lives. NONE of us are perfect, and able to start judging other people’s imperfections. Even with our imperfections, it’s possible to recite, and believe, fully in the creeds. Those creeds state, " For us men and for our salvation…," and “For our sake…” That’s everyone one of us, in our state of sinfulness. In our belief, if He but say the word, we shall be healed…of all iniquities, even those others think are sins greater than their own.

We are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Pushing people away with tones of self righteous with condemnations runs a risk of pushing people away. It is not displaying love, in my honest opinion.

In the Gospels we find a formula for fraternal correction. First it requires a one on one, and certainly with love towards your fellow man. No where is it taught, to anonymously post divisive language to estrange others in their sins. That is against ‘taking them to the Church’ as the Gospels actually teach.

Christ admonished those who thought themselves righteous, along with those who lived in sin. Yet the admonishments seemed to be stronger, for those who saw themselves as righteous, than the correction of those who were in sin. There’s a difference in being called ‘hypocrites’ and told to ‘sin no more.’

Love in all things, even corrections. Without it, we run the risk of culpability if we push someone into obstinately into remaining in a sinful condition.

 

[Joe_5859]

While you and others might in fact be speaking the true answer from the standpoint of the Catholic Church: That a person baptized in the Catholic Church is always considered Catholic no matter what… CAF “apologist” Fr Serpa emphatically disagrees here. He answers with “No, No. The answer is NO!”
.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8674827&postcount=2

I have been reading this forum for a little while now and have seen others give a similar answer as Fr Serpa. And to be perfectly honest, answers like theirs led me to stop even attending Mass. I decided if even the “apologists” of a Catholic “answers” forum do not recognize what the Catholic Church says and want me to in effect lie and say I am not a Catholic of any sort, then I will just leave the practice altogether. And if God did not want me to be led further away, I would just leave it to them to answer to Him.

I think you are reading more into Fr. Serpa’s comments than he said. If someone asked me the question, “Can someone be pro-choice and Catholic?”, I would also say no. The pro-choice position and the Catholic position are incompatible with each other with regards to abortion.

If the person had asked, “Does a pro-choice Catholic cease to become Catholic by virtue of their pro-choic positions?”, I’d imagine Fr. Serpa would answer the question differently, as would I. It’s a different question.

 

[Linux]

I think you are reading more into Fr. Serpa’s comments than he said. If someone asked me the question, “Can someone be pro-choice and Catholic?”, I would also say no. The pro-choice position and the Catholic position are incompatible with each other with regards to abortion.

If the person had asked, “Does a pro-choice Catholic cease to become Catholic by virtue of their pro-choic positions?”, I’d imagine Fr. Serpa would answer the question differently, as would I. It’s a different question.

Pro-choice is morally incompatible as a moral question, but that does not mean that it is legally incompatible. In other words no catholic is saying that abortion is not evil. But some are saying that an imposition of law on women based on religious beliefs is incompatible with the split between religion and the state. Banning abortion on religious grounds is therefore incoherent with the function of the state and secular law; and that is precisely why it is legal.

Anti-abortion is based fundamentally on the belief that a foetus is a person, and insofar as Catholics are concerned, this in turn is based on the belief that God creates a personal soul at conception. Hence it simply is not possible for pro-choice to be over turned so long as the state remains consistent with secular law.

Hence if a Catholic votes for a pro-choice candidate, it is only because they realise that abortion is here to stay, and the personal beliefs of the candidates they vote for has no relevance in regards to what is practically possible in secular state.Thus when they vote the question of abortion is not a priority concern.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you are reading more into Fr. Serpa’s comments than he said. If someone asked me the question, “Can someone be pro-choice and Catholic?”, I would also say no. The pro-choice position and the Catholic position are incompatible with each other with regards to abortion.

If the person had asked, “Does a pro-choice Catholic cease to become Catholic by virtue of their pro-choic positions?”, I’d imagine Fr. Serpa would answer the question differently, as would I. It’s a different question.

I agree and appreciate your articulation.

 

[Linux]

Catholics should spend more time trying to change the hearts and minds of people through expressing the faith instead of trying to impose their beliefs on people through legalism. Anybody who thinks that by voting for somebody who holds the personal belief of pro-life will change pro-choice laws is fooling themselves and really doesn’t understand politics. You are being hoodwinked by a party that is using your Catholic guilt to further their own corrupt agenda under the false promise of change.

Voting for somebody merely because they’re are personally pro-life is ridiculous since it has no relevance in terms of whether or not pro-life can be legally applied.

Insofar as that is true, it is not a sin for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catholics should spend more time trying to change the hearts and minds of people through expressing the faith instead of trying to impose their beliefs on people through legalism. Anybody who thinks that by voting for somebody who holds the personal belief of pro-life will change pro-choice laws is fooling themselves and really doesn’t understand politics. You are being hoodwinked by a party that is using your Catholic guilt to further their own corrupt agenda under the false promise of change.

Voting for somebody merely because they’re are personally pro-life is ridiculous since it has no relevance in terms of whether or not pro-life can be legally applied.

Insofar as that is true, it is not a sin for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

In another thread a poster criticized this administration for number of goals not being accomplished, because it had a ‘super’ majority in the house and senate for 2 years. I saw hypocrisy in that criticism because the previous administration enjoyed at least 2 years of the same ‘super’ majority, yet no reversals were made in the issues some place above all other issues. Not only does it draw suspicion to the politicians inaction, it places suspicion to partisans who use the important issues in the interest of advancing other issues. It demeans an issue’s importance, if it is truly misused for political interests.

In addition to seeking acceptable legislation, we have to work on changing hearts and minds, as Christ commissioned His Apostles to do. He gave no instructions to seek political advantages, or take over governments of this world. Changing hearts and minds requires respect, and compassion towards one another.

We cannot change hearts and minds if we put up walls, such as condemnations, or questioning another person’s faith. According to Pope Francis, we can get closer to truth, through dialogue. That’s why he calls us to build bridges to establish dialogue, even with those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways. There is no condoning of any wrongs in his instructions, but there a call to enrich one another with truth derived from dialogue. There is a point that some communication is no longer dialogue, and is the same as building walls. Public condemnations, and generalizations, with a tone of separation, are that way, in my opinion.

“Your fidelity to the Church still needs you to stand strong against the hypocrisies that result from a closed and sick heart. But your main task isn’t to build walls but bridges. It is to establish a dialogue with all persons, even those who don’t share the Christian faith but “who cultivate outstanding qualities of the human spirit” and even with “those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways. … Through dialogue it is always possible to get closer to the truth, which is a gift of God, and to enrich one another.” Pope Francis reiterated that dialogue means “being convinced that the other has something good to say, making room for their point of view, their opinion, their proposals, without falling, of course, into relativism. For dialogue [to exist] it is necessary to lower the defences and open the doors.”

-Pope Francis: Lower defences and open doors

I can’t reconcile the tone of this thread with the Pope’s message. If we are to build bridges with even those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways, we certainly should maintain, and build, bridges with those in the Church whose actions we might question. With that said, we cannot assume to know the intents of another person’s heart, and shouldn’t make rash judgments against what we perceive to be obvious sins. Our sins may not be as obvious, but they are sins none the less, and we don’t know the limitations of another person’s faith. If we are right, we are blessed, and cannot hold another equal to our own understandings against theirs.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

I think you are reading more into Fr. Serpa’s comments than he said. If someone asked me the question, “Can someone be pro-choice and Catholic?”, I would also say no. The pro-choice position and the Catholic position are incompatible with each other with regards to abortion.

If the person had asked, “Does a pro-choice Catholic cease to become Catholic by virtue of their pro-choic positions?”, I’d imagine Fr. Serpa would answer the question differently, as would I. It’s a different question.

In that case don’t you see how it nevertheless appears and causes confusion when you and Fr Serpa and others therefore say, No. Someone can not be pro choice and Catholic. But at the same time then say they do not cease to be Catholic. It can’t be both ways.

I might tend to agree with you and Fr Serpa and others if the question had been, Can someone be pro choice and a fully faithful Catholic?". But that was not the question.

I know from observing for a while the line oft used on these forums is a person is poorly catechized. I saw this mentioned on this thread by Charlemagne II. I know I can only speak for myself but I find it hard to imagine I am alone on this. I am and I have to presume there are others like me, who are informed of what the Catholic Church teaches. But as hard as we have struggled and struggled and struggled to try forcing our consciences to conform, say on choice or SS union rights, we simply can not.

In any case whether someone is Catholic by virtue of the Sacraments they have received as apparently the Catholic Church teaches they are, or not Catholic by virtue of an internet forum, I really think Linux and Portofino have made some good observations in their posts. And perhaps since Christ said wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, there He is and He would turn no one away, I shall just leave it at that and move on to an ecclesial community where all are welcomed. In the end one thing I do believe is He knows my heart.