"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[twb1621]

Our country prides itself in the seperation of Church and state. It is quite frustrating how self righteous individuals get caught up in the politics of abortion. The politics of abortion are too complicated for any of us to have a quick answer for it. The morals of abortion although complicated are not as complicated. For myself I believe they are wrong. It is my duty as a Christian to pray that the hearts of people change. It is also my duty to encourage others to consider other options beside abortion. On the other hand I will not stand in judgement of those who do it. That is for God. Unfortunately in our political system the issue of abortion has become a game piece on a board game. If one chooses only the issue of abortion and any topic related to it, as a means of alligning with a political party or supporting a leader, then one has not been fully educated about the other issues that face and affect us as Catholics and also the very babies, families, and individuals we want to save from this grotesque act. I have been preached to by well meaning fellow Catholics and also priests about the voting against abortion. However that is the only game piece the other party holds for me. For me the right to life goes beyond abortion. We have been fighting an unjust war where our soldiers have lost lives and millions of people in another country are affected. Millions of Americans including families who chose to give birth rather than have abortion do not have access to affordable health care. I could not support a president and administration just because they have the platform of right to life, and then ignore their dishonesty and distructive polices that have wasted resources and human life. For us to stop abortion we must change the hearts of people. We must educate. We must reach out to one another. We are not going to win on this by the law alone.

Lets look at what our country Pride’s itself over;

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God being the creator) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (Life being the first unalienable right), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now, what value does this document hold today and how do we get that the separation between God (because it no longer is just of Church) and State had anything to do with what we say it means today… This document does not reflect the country it was written regarding. And how easily deceived we “Christians” are to have our faith governed, controlled by an estimated 14% of the population…

 

[elts1956]

One must be careful, as the five non-negotiable issues as defined by the Voter’s Guide is
not the authoritive teaching of the Church. It differs in several ways. For instance,
the voters guide put out by CA lists only five principles and further goes on to suggest that voters should then compromise on those five. Even on abortion itself. The USCCB put forth its statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

which links to the Vatican’s doctrinal note on voting:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…litica_en.html

Within this note is the reiteration of statements concerning the concept of “limiting the harm” in which John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae is quoted. In this document the Church spells out nine broad and overlapping categories** of principles** (not merely five succint issues) which all Catholics are called to uphold as “the essence of the moral law” and hold as non-negotiable under pain of mortal sin. It calls them “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”.
Here is a direct quote from that document:

which is then followed by the nine broad principles that all Catholics are called to uphold. The reduced list presented by the independent group (not the Catholic Church) putting out the Voter’s Guide are severely abridged forms of the non-negotiable principles set forth by the Vatican.

Regarding the principle of “limiting the harm” introduced in Evangelium Vitae, here is what the Vatican had to say in its doctrinal note:
I mention this because the voter’s guide to an unwary reader would have a ‘Serious Catholic’ believe they can compromise on the moral law ignoring the Church’s definition of nine broad principles all are required to uphold without exception rather reducing them to five succint issues, and of even those five ignore all save one. Then a ‘serious Catholic’ is led to believe that they may then even compromise on that solitary issue in support of a ‘lesser evil’, a concept not supported in Evangelium Vitae or the doctrinal note from the Vatican.

This is relevant because one has to be very cautious when moral requirements as spelled out specifically by the Vatican and reiterated by bishops (such as the USCCB) on numerous occasions are severly reduced in a compendium with critical information left out (examples, the statement of there being an abridged subset of principles called the five non-negotiable issues, the advice that even these five can be negotiated or ignored solely if another candidate supports more of them). It is all too easy for ‘serious’ Catholics to be mislead. We must be wary and always on guard.

In short, In no way, shape, or form can a Catholic in good conscience support a pro-choice candidate and remain in line with the teachings of the Church.

Hello there. I need help with the link you gave for
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co…litica_en.html

Where do I go from there? Also it is my understanding and since I haven’t seen the additional four non negotiables yet, that only five were mentioned because those were the ones in action during this election.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is very clear on this point. A person who is not looking for loopholes can easily see that we cannot show support for a politician who is a supporter of a woman’s right to murder her unborn child.

Common sense tells a well formed conscience that abortion is much worse than any other questionable conduct in the world today.
All of the reasons given for supporting the liberal democratic candidates do not come anywhere close to the 50 + million abortions performed in the USA alone. Not even Hitler’s holocaust of the Jews, nor Stalin’s holocaust of Christians equals that of the number of babies murdered LEGALLY in the USA alone.

There is no conscianable excuse for voting for a pro choice candidate. Abortion, euthanasia, ebryonic stem cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage etc. are about the dignity of each and every life created. It outweighs any other subject.

 

[mapleoak]

Hello there. I need help with the link you gave for
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co…litica_en.html

Where do I go from there? Also it is my understanding and since I haven’t seen the additional four non negotiables yet, that only five were mentioned because those were the ones in action during this election.
Sorry about that, in my first post I had an error in the link.
I posted the correct link in post #139. Try that one out.

The “non-negotiables” that were spelled out in various forms of the “Voter’s Guide” or “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” (put out by an independent source, not the Catholic Church) are not incorrect in substance, they are just lacking in completeness. Notice it does not contain an imprimatur or Nihil Obstat either. It also does not properly address the concept of “limiting the harm” and its proper application and when it is legitimate to apply such principle. The concept of “limiting the harm” was introduced in Evangelium Vitae.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Sorry about that, in my first post I had an error in the link.
I posted the correct link in post #139. Try that one out.

The “non-negotiables” that were spelled out in various forms of the “Voter’s Guide” or “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” (put out by an independent source, not the Catholic Church) are not incorrect in substance, they are just lacking in completeness. Notice it does not contain an imprimatur or Nihil Obstat either. It also does not properly address the concept of “limiting the harm” and its proper application and when it is legitimate to apply such principle. The concept of “limiting the harm” was introduced in Evangelium Vitae.

It’s been awhile, but I have read all of the “Voter’s Guides”. I’m sure I read that those
were not the only “non-negotiables”. The intent was to provide a short guide on the
issues most important during this time. They lacked in completeness, but not in
clarity. I attended a workshop for the Bishops Guide and clear it was not. And the
priest who lead the discussion was quite bent on making “the war” an issue we could
debate (when deciding on a candidate) but even he did have to admit that is was not
on the level of abortion. (But he did vote for the democrat in that election even so.)

Oh, and I believe the 2008 did have and imprimatur.

 

[twb1621]

As a general comment, sometimes some of us seem to completely forget that the teachings presented to us through the Catholic Church are not mere rules that were established to appease the higher-ups of the “club” we belong to, “just because they could”. These teachings are the teachings of Christ handed down to us under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, which was passed on through Apostolic Succession and the insight of the Magisterium. We do not have to understand everything that is taught for no one know the mind of God as we realize, but we do have a Christian responsibility on our part based on the Covenant Jesus made with us, to have faith and trust in Him and live according to His teachings. We also have our God given ability to reason and are called to use it just as we exercise our free will. If we keep this in mind it may be easier to accept the Church’s direction. It obviously has not conflicted with scripture.

We are given the fullness of Christ’s teachings and as the gospel proclaims, He who is given more, more is expected…

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

for the clergy that lead us wrong…

Hail Mary, full of grace,
The Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art Thou among women,
And blessed is the Fruit of Thine womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[twb1621]

for the clergy that lead us wrong…

Hail Mary, full of grace,
The Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art Thou among women,
And blessed is the Fruit of Thine womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Amen to that…

 

[libbybeth]

No-one should try to score points by walking out of Mass to empasise their point of view, regardless of whether or not they agree with the celebrant or his Homily.
We come to Mass to express our love for, and adoration of our Creator, and his Son, our Redeemer.

You should not play political football with God!!

On the question of being pro-choice, all people - and that includes Catholics - are pro-choice in all their acts.

Like our forbears, Adam and Eve, we choose whether or not to love, trust, adore and obey God. If we believe that God created all, and that Jesus became incarnate in the womb of his mother, we would not wish to be ungrateful for the gifts of God by aborting what he has created.

We perhaps should have charity ; pray for women who have abortions; for their babies; and for those people who reject God to his face by walking out of Mass.

Pro - choice ultimately means not just abortion or women’s rights. It means choosing God for all eternity. Unfortunately, today, as in the time before the coming of Christ, many people have chose to ignore God. His Son Our Lord was pro choice - he came to redeem us and to give us the means to exercise our choice to go back to him.

God bless
Libbybe

 

[Ockham]

What on Earth does all that mean?

 

[LindaSK]

Libbybeth,

Again, in English, please???

 

[Fiyero3305]

If I understand Libbybeth correctly I believe she (I assume female based on the username?) is pointing out the erroneous title of “Pro-Choice” when referring to someone who is actually pro-abortion because doing so implies that anyone who is against the “Pro-Choice” opinion is against choice, when in reality no one is anti-choice.

I don’t know if that helped at all or was just more confusing…

 

[limerick]

No sugar coating… What does it say of the morality of “Catholics” who believe more in the right to choose than in abstinence? Catholics who will stand up and walk out in the middle of a mass worshiping our God because they do not want to here a homily on the wrongs of abortion. After all, is that not what it comes down too? That it is today morally more acceptable to have an abortion than to have a child resulting from the failure to merely abstain?

This is by no means meant to be a flip remark: What if they choose abstinence? As far as I’m concerned, abstinence is one option on the choice menu.

Limerick

 

[Alisa]

Who are we to sit in judgment of our fellow human beings, and especially our fellow Catholics? It seems to me that many people who make comments on this forum and others need to look to their own lives.

I would never have, nor will I ever have an abortion myself. But I’ve known women who felt they had no choice and regretfully chose abortion out of desperation. I’m saddened by this, but always try to remember “never judge a person unless you’ve walked in his shoes,” and also 'judge not, yet ye yourself be judged".

I think it’s pretty despicable for one to rake over the coals others who disagree with one’s views. Let’s solve this abortion issue – but not by denigrating one another with comments about the fires of hell or whatever else.

We have other important issues on our plates as Americans as well. Though I might disagree with President Obama on the abortion rights issue, I applaud him heartily for all the other things he’s trying to accomplish.

Alisa

 

[a_priori]

Who are we to sit in judgment of our fellow human beings, and especially our fellow Catholics?

“Judgment” is subjective. Many of us think that a terrorist removing a man’s head from his body with a sword isn’t any different than an OB/GYN removing a baby’s head from his body with a suction curette. In both cases, a living human head is removed from a living human body. If the terrorist can be judged wrong when he wields his sword, then the OB/GYN can be judged when he wields his curette. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to compartmentalize to the point where we sanitize in our own minds this legal beheading that occurs out of sight behind closed doors with the remnants disposed of efficiently and without upsetting us.

 

[Alisa]

A priori, you make a good point about beheading. I think about that too – what I would do if I witnessed somebody beheading another. And abortion as murder – I hear what you’re saying, and I think about that too.

As I just posted in another thread, it surprises me that certain Americans are able to see Obama only with reference to his attitude toward “pro choice”. Surely his short but excellent record as our President is more multidimensional than that? I would hate, in my own life, to be judged on one issue.

It also seems to me that it’s easier for some people to turn all their aggression and frustration down one avenue, with the result being a sort of self-righteousness. What’s that biblical quote about self satisfaction?

Alisa

 

[elts1956]

One must be careful, as the five non-negotiable issues as defined by the Voter’s Guide is
not the authoritive teaching of the Church. It differs in several ways. For instance,
the voters guide put out by CA lists only five principles and further goes on to suggest that voters should then compromise on those five. Even on abortion itself. The USCCB put forth its statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

which links to the Vatican’s doctrinal note on voting:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…litica_en.html

Within this note is the reiteration of statements concerning the concept of “limiting the harm” in which John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae is quoted. In this document the Church spells out nine broad and overlapping categories** of principles** (not merely five succint issues) which all Catholics are called to uphold as “the essence of the moral law” and hold as non-negotiable under pain of mortal sin. It calls them “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”.
Here is a direct quote from that document:

which is then followed by the nine broad principles that all Catholics are called to uphold. The reduced list presented by the independent group (not the Catholic Church) putting out the Voter’s Guide are severely abridged forms of the non-negotiable principles set forth by the Vatican.

Regarding the principle of “limiting the harm” introduced in Evangelium Vitae, here is what the Vatican had to say in its doctrinal note:
I mention this because the voter’s guide to an unwary reader would have a ‘Serious Catholic’ believe they can compromise on the moral law ignoring the Church’s definition of nine broad principles all are required to uphold without exception rather reducing them to five succint issues, and of even those five ignore all save one. Then a ‘serious Catholic’ is led to believe that they may then even compromise on that solitary issue in support of a ‘lesser evil’, a concept not supported in Evangelium Vitae or the doctrinal note from the Vatican.

This is relevant because one has to be very cautious when moral requirements as spelled out specifically by the Vatican and reiterated by bishops (such as the USCCB) on numerous occasions are severly reduced in a compendium with critical information left out (examples, the statement of there being an abridged subset of principles called the five non-negotiable issues, the advice that even these five can be negotiated or ignored solely if another candidate supports more of them). It is all too easy for ‘serious’ Catholics to be mislead. We must be wary and always on guard.

In short, In no way, shape, or form can a Catholic in good conscience support a pro-choice candidate and remain in line with the teachings of the Church.

Hi Maple. Questions/Statements First, I am confused about your statement you found the USCCB statement to be more clear than the CAF voters guide. Then you mention nine intrinsic evils. Would you please tell us what the additional four are other than abortion, euthanasia, colning, embryonic stem cell research, and homosexual marriage? As I understand it, there ARE more than five intrinsic evils stated by the Church, BUT they were not on the agenda to be voted upon this past election so therefore CAF listed only the five that were.

I found the USCCB document to have been very confusing. It first named the five non-negotiables, then went on to list war, economy, environment and other Social issues in the next paragraph, which are negotiable. Anyone not realizing how non negotiable those evils involving life are, would very easily be confused.

I have read the CAF voters guide and found no duplicity in it. Would you clarify your belief by stating page and paragraph? Perhaps you have the two documents confused?

 

[mapleoak]

Hi Maple. Questions/Statements First, I am confused about your statement you found the USCCB statement to be more clear than the CAF voters guide. Then you mention nine intrinsic evils. Would you please tell us what the additional four are other than abortion, euthanasia, colning, embryonic stem cell research, and homosexual marriage? As I understand it, there ARE more than five intrinsic evils stated by the Church, BUT they were not on the agenda to be voted upon this past election so therefore CAF listed only the five that were.

I found the USCCB document to have been very confusing. It first named the five non-negotiables, then went on to list war, economy, environment and other Social issues in the next paragraph, which are negotiable. Anyone not realizing how non negotiable those evils involving life are, would very easily be confused.

I have read the CAF voters guide and found no duplicity in it. Would you clarify your belief by stating page and paragraph? Perhaps you have the two documents confused?

You are correct in that the USCCB document is very vague, although it does not appear to contain anything contrary to Church teaching, it easy for someone reading it to come to the wrong conclusions due to its vague wording.

The document I was referring to was a doctrinal note put out by the Vatican:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Here is an excerpt from that document:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of *fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, *Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from *modern forms of slavery *(drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».%between% Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».%between% It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.
The difference between this and the voters’ guide is that the Vatican’s note is much more broad and encompassing and not succint as is the voters’ guide. Again, as with the USCCB, this does not mean the voter’s guide is wrong, rather it is incomplete, though it may have been sufficient for this past election. It is lacking enough though that it cannot be considered as encompassing enough for all election scenarios which may present themselves.

From the same document:

As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae *%between%*limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.
Here it references the concept of “limiting the harm” introduced by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae. Again, I think the concept is much more restrictive that the concept of “voting for the lesser evil” given in the voter’s guide. Your thoughts?

 

[Ockham]

Alisa, Obama’s record is a matter of opinion. The only things he has actually done so far is to sink the country dramatically further into debt and legalizing abortion. It’s a shame to be dragging your polemic preferences into a matter of life and death. By your logic we should also feel compassion for the terrorist, mass murderer, etc. Ultimately all will be judged by the laws God gave us.

 

[libbybeth]

If I understand Libbybeth correctly I believe she (I assume female based on the username?) is pointing out the erroneous title of “Pro-Choice” when referring to someone who is actually pro-abortion because doing so implies that anyone who is against the “Pro-Choice” opinion is against choice, when in reality no one is anti-choice.

I don’t know if that helped at all or was just more confusing…

Don,t make assumptions!!
The title “Pro-Choice” indicates that a person should be able to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy by having an abortion. The abortion is terminated by killing the baby growing within the womb.

If the law permits it, then all women coming under the provisions of the law have the ability to abort their baby, or not to abort their baby.

However, to abort a baby is clearly destroying a part of God’s creation before it reaches its full potential, something that no person who believes in God should be willing to do.

God himself sent his one and only unique Son in to this earth by means of the incarnation - Jesus was conceived and became a baby in the womb of his mother, Mary. This shows the value he puts on being human, and being life in the womb. Although we have the ability to destroy such life through the choices we exercise, we should remember the incarnation, and how abortion if it had been offered to Mary, would have altered history.

When a Catholic, or any other person goes to Mass, they are partipating in the greatest form of prayer known to the Church, instituted by Our Blessed Lord on Maundy Thursday. If a pro-choice Catholic walks out of Mass because they disapprove of the stance of the celebrant on supporting unborn life, the person who walks out is exercising their choice; of course they are; but to walk out of Mass is to turn your back on the One who really matters, as we believe that He is truly present at Mass.
Actions which involve rejecting Christ himself should be left behind when entering the Church door. He chose to love us - can’t we also choose to love Him?

Libbybeth