Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[SoCalRC]

A weather report was not necessary, just yea or nah, so after reading all that you’re left having to draw your own conclusions. And when you do, the SoCal jumps up and down and says, we twist his words.

Since you have a nack for misinterpretation, explanation in detail seems appropriate.

Ok, thats what I’m doing when I vote for pro life conservative candidates. That would not be a good thing in your view?

If you vote ‘pro life’ in accordance with the definition provided in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, and the guidance provided by the Vatican in terms of upholding the “essence of moral law” (vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html) it would be a good thing. If you compromise on the teaching in your voting I, personally, believe it is a bad thing.

For example, your open support of torture in defiance of the Catechism and International law devalues human life. I agree with the Pope. If we devalue human life in the most widely accepted forms, we have little chance of convincing people to value it at the margins of existance.

After reading this quote, am I correct in thinking you feel it is wrong to tie abortion to the latter two life issues, and if so, why?

Not at all, I wholely support such a teaching. It is folks like Vern, Ender, and yourself who have publicly rejected portions of the Church’s expansive understanding of the “right to life”.

I’m not for the wholesale torture of prisoners, but if one has specific knowledge of a impending terrorist attack…
, I’m for doing what is necessary to prevent it. But I’m “not for throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks.” I believe in doing what is necessary to terroists with specific knowledge as self defense, and as Vern pointed out, not refuted by the Church.

The Church disagrees with you. CCC 2313 is clear, as are multiple Popes. We reject this for the same reason that abortion is an absolute, even in the case of the life of the mother (which some people have tried to argue is “self defense” as well).

From your actions, are we to assume that ‘life’ is a fair weather belief? Something you are willing to impose on others, but willing to discard when it would be inconvenient or risky to you?

Pope Pius IX stated that the baby (it is NOT a fetus where I come from) is inarguably not animated. Does this mean Pius IX didn’t believe the baby in the womb as a person? And later doctrine notes reaffirmed that postion, or did I misunderstand the text?

We believe that a fetus represents human life from the moment of fertizliation. However, personhood occurs when we are infused with a soul. For about 1400 years the Church held that occured at ‘quickening’, or first felt movement. Now we hold that we don’t know when it occurs. After ensoulment, abortion is a form of murder. Prior to ensoulment it is what Pope Pius IX described as “anticipted murder”.

Remember, we consider contraception to be gravely immoral as well. That is why you will find ‘masterbation’ referred to as ‘murder’ in Christian writing from the middle ages. So, as the Church points out, the point of ensoulment is irrelevant, since an abortion is always either a murder or a particularly heinous form of birth control.

 

[SoCalRC]

Hmm…this paragraph made me think of an important biblical reference:
usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm

Sounds pretty “animated” to me. What was that baby doing leaping, when neither he nor Our Lord whom he leapt in response to had received the “breath of life” at birth?

Pope Pius IX was referring to an early pregnancy. For 1400 years we held to the ‘quickening’ test. So, if the movement was felt maternally, then ‘quickening’ (and ensoulment) had occured.

Remember, first breath is coming from the Halacha, Jewish law that Jesus lived with. Ensoulment is a mystery that Jews have long held would be answered by the Messiah. Which may be why early Christians adopted the quickening test so early on.

 

[rlg94086]

Pope Pius IX was referring to an early pregnancy. For 1400 years we held to the ‘quickening’ test. So, if the movement was felt maternally, then ‘quickening’ (and ensoulment) had occured.

Remember, first breath is coming from the Halacha, Jewish law that Jesus lived with. Ensoulment is a mystery that Jews have long held would be answered by the Messiah. Which may be why early Christians adopted the quickening test so early on.

Thanks SoCalRC…I wasn’t familiar with the history of “quickening” and wondered if that might be the case, as well. Do you think that Matthew had understood that when he wrote his gospel?

Reflecting on your posts regarding the history of abortion (thank you, as I find them very interesting), I would think it makes sense that today’s magisterial prohibition of abortion from conception is a logical consequence of advances in science. At the time that the Chruch believed in a “quickening,” they didn’t have things like ultrasound or a clear understanding of fetal development. However, it doesn’t make for a reversal of position on the part of the Church, just a better definition and understanding of abortion.

 

[Icarus]

Jeremiah 1:5 is about Jesus & no one else.

“Then the word of the LORD came unto me (Jeremiah is the “me”), saying…. Before I formed thee (remember he is talking to Jeremiah) in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations”

I believe that he is talking to, and about Jeremiah.
But if we assume your perspective….
Is Jesus a prophet or the Son of God? He can’t be both. (thats what non-christains say… that he was just a Prophet)
he alluded to this in a parrable (the Leased Vineyard) that he was the “son” that the father had sent (who was also killed) so the Father leased the Vineyard to the gentiles.
Why would Jesus in the parrable make a solid distinction between the servents and the son (being the prophets and himself) that came to collect the share of the grapes… and were all killed.

Why would God need to sanctify Jesus if Jesus is God and existed the instant God did… as part of the Trinity.

Lastly, why would God have 2 separate and discriminate means of forming a soul?
Jesus say that - what you do to the least of these you do to me. (Balances us to him)
God says that he made us in his image. (Balances us to him)
That in paradise we all share in it fully. (Balances us to him) in the sharing of all these things

Note: Please…don’t try and twist my words and make it that I am saying we are equal in power to God – that’s what Satan wanted!
I only refer to the sharing of Gods completness… his Love and his ways.

Yet, you for this instance, point to separate and discriminate means of forming one’s soul.

Where do you get that from?
Why would God have 2 standards?
You can’t have that and be God! God has to follow his own rules!
All that God made is Good, if he made us and were Good (until the Fall) Why would he form us in a way apart from all that he made that was “Good”
Remember the “word” was (is) there before the materialism of it came (can come) into being, in this worldly existence.

 

[SoCalRC]

Thanks SoCalRC…I wasn’t familiar with the history of “quickening” and wondered if that might be the case, as well. Do you think that Matthew had understood that when he wrote his gospel?

Matthew does seem particularly sensitive to a Jewish audience.

Reflecting on your posts regarding the history of abortion (thank you, as I find them very interesting), I would think it makes sense that today’s magisterial prohibition of abortion from conception is a logical consequence of advances in science. At the time that the Chruch believed in a “quickening,” they didn’t have things like ultrasound or a clear understanding of fetal development. However, it doesn’t make for a reversal of position on the part of the Church, just a better definition and understanding of abortion.

Among theologians from the 18th century, you will see a lot of urgency in reflection to revelations about human reproduction. There was even a in vetro baptism movement which, unfortunately, probably led to its fair share of spontanous miscarriages.

Personally, having studied this a long time, I suspect that Church was responding to society more than science. Remember, our teaching remains unchanged. Only the distinction with regards to Church law was changed. By the mid 19th century abortion services were wide spread in much of the world. You’ll find them openly advertised in newspapers over the US and Europe from the time. But this is before plasma and antibiotics, so maternal deaths were anything but rare and the sheer number of those seems to have triggered some public outcry. Maternal deaths, a growing prevelence of a paticular sin, etc. and it seems reasonable for the Church to stiffen the penalties in 1869.

Similarly, there is no scientific reason for the Church to suddenly take a strong stance on late term abortions of medical necessity a few decades later. But there was ominous growth in the popularity of western eugenics movements. The Church did not have to reverse itself, but suddenly stepped into a tragic, margin case, presumably not because there was not empathy for those cases, but because of another growing evil.

P.S. As a side note, the more we learn about fetal development, the more interesting the question becomes. For example, synapses do not form gradually, but in a swift burst at about 24-26 weeks - always after convulsive movement is felt by the mother. Prior to that, there are neurons, but no functioning brain directing the body. So our last Catholic quickening test (Gregory XIV) of 116 days (about 17 weeks) and his explanation of how he arrived at it, seemss centuries ahead of its time.

Note - the Church has clearly explained that the exact point of ensoulment is not important with regards to our absolute prohibition, I just think it is an interesting finding.

 

[rlg94086]

Matthew does seem particularly sensitive to a Jewish audience.

Among theologians from the 18th century, you will see a lot of urgency in reflection to revelations about human reproduction. There was even a in vetro baptism movement which, unfortunately, probably led to its fair share of spontanous miscarriages.

Personally, having studied this a long time, I suspect that Church was responding to society more than science. Remember, our teaching remains unchanged. Only the distinction with regards to Church law was changed. By the mid 19th century abortion services were wide spread in much of the world. You’ll find them openly advertised in newspapers over the US and Europe from the time. But this is before plasma and antibiotics, so maternal deaths were anything but rare and the sheer number of those seems to have triggered some public outcry. Maternal deaths, a growing prevelence of a paticular sin, etc. and it seems reasonable for the Church to stiffen the penalties in 1869.

Similarly, there is no scientific reason for the Church to suddenly take a strong stance on late term abortions of medical necessity a few decades later. But there was ominous growth in the popularity of western eugenics movements. The Church did not have to reverse itself, but suddenly stepped into a tragic, margin case, presumably not because there was not empathy for those cases, but because of another growing evil.

You lost me…

The link between late term abortions and eugenics? Does that have something to do with the stiffened penalties in 1869 (what stiffened penalties btw?)?

 

[SoCalRC]

You lost me…

The link between late term abortions and eugenics? Does that have something to do with the stiffened penalties in 1869 (what stiffened penalties btw?)?

For the sake of penalties, the Church made a distinction between animated (ensouled) and not animated. This was dropped in 1869. But, in doing so the Pope stated the distinction was still, undeniably real, but not relevant to the theological question.

The Church cracked down on early term abortions just as they were becoming extremely popular and maternal deaths from them seen as a problem.

Similiarly, in 1869 the question of the mother’s health was deferred (the Church was asked, but declined to rule). But about the 1880s, the Church weighed in on cranio.'s, and then later with a more strict prohibition. Our understanding from that time is that abortion to save the life of a mother is not licit.

From what I can tell there were no significant advances lowering the medical necessities, those came early in the 20th century. But there was an upsurge in eugenics practices, terminating ‘defective’ children at birth. So, the Church took a stand on ‘medical necessity’, just as that excuse was being used for eugenics/infanticide in growing numbers.

Again, the teaching never changed, but the Church’s emphasis on certain things did.

 

[rlg94086]

For the sake of penalties, the Church made a distinction between animated (ensouled) and not animated. This was dropped in 1869. But, in doing so the Pope stated the distinction was still, undeniably real, but not relevant to the theological question.

Okay. So, you aren’t really talking about penalties, rather when the Church “dropped” the “distinction between animated (ensouled) and not animated,” she just clarified that abortion is evil from time of conception. The “penalties” for abortion didn’t change.

SoCalRC:

The Church cracked down on early term abortions just as they were becoming extremely popular and maternal deaths from them seen as a problem.

Similiarly, in 1869 the question of the mother’s health was deferred (the Church was asked, but declined to rule). But about the 1880s, the Church weighed in on cranio.'s, and then later with a more strict prohibition. Our understanding from that time is that abortion to save the life of a mother is not licit.

I’m sorry. I followed most of that…but what is “cranio.'s?”

SoCalRC:

From what I can tell there were no significant advances lowering the medical necessities, those came early in the 20th century. But there was an upsurge in eugenics practices, terminating ‘defective’ children at birth. So, the Church took a stand on ‘medical necessity’, just as that excuse was being used for eugenics/infanticide in growing numbers.

Again, the teaching never changed, but the Church’s emphasis on certain things did.

Ah…so, you are talking about, for example, aborting of children with Down’s Syndrome, other birth defects, girls (due to a desire for boys)…? Got it.

For partial birth abortion, I thought you were commenting on recent stances of the Church (along with those evil, anti-Catholic evangelicals ) against the practice. I think that is just a matter of the incremental war that we have to wage politically against abortion. We can’t get the whole thing banned at this point, so we start with what we can. IOW…as you said, it is not related to scientific advances. Rather, it is “responding to society.” Is that correct?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

A fetus is just that until it has developed to the point where it can survive outside the womb. Until God has breathed life into that body it does not have a soul.

I believe in life. I also believe in the right to choose, however there are caveat’s to that right.

Here is what the Catholic Church says:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

**You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.**75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 **Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 “by the very commission of the offense,”**78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

**“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”**80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 **Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. **

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

(My emphasis)

It could not be more clear that the Church forbids abortion, and that far from there being a “right to choose” on the part of the parents, the rights are on the side of the unborn child – which has an inalienable right to life.

 

[BamaRider]

SoCal said this because I’m for nailing terroists before they get me or my family.

The Church disagrees with you. CCC 2313 is clear, as are multiple Popes. We reject this for the same reason that abortion is an absolute, even in the case of the life of the mother (which some people have tried to argue is “self defense” as well).

From your actions, are we to assume that ‘life’ is a fair weather belief? Something you are willing to impose on others, but willing to discard when it would be inconvenient or risky to you?

I think I made myself clear. I’m not for lining up people and torturing them, but if some kook has knowledge of bomb going off in my backyard killing my 10 year old niece, then I call it self defense, and I don’t beliefe that conflicts with Church teaching.

What you have convienently left out of your cathecist quote- From the CCC 2309 concerning use of military action for self defense.

-The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or coummunity of nations must be lasting grave and certain. (a nuke going off in my city I think qualifies)

*-all other means of putting and end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective (that would asking a kook where the bomb is and when it might go off, and get no response)
*
-There must be serious prospects of success. (If he tells us what we wanna know, we can prevent it)

-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver then the evil being eliminated. (in this case the evil being eliminated would be the terroist with a nuke trying to kill thousands of innocents. That equation is way slanted to the innoenct.

Look, I understand you’re gonna give the guy a pass, and what happens regarding the nuke happens. I’m just thankful you or no like thinking individual is in a positions to have to make a call outside of a internet forum.

I also vote absouletly pro life candidates, and so far none of them have social agendas that were/are much different than mine. But If faced with the choice of pro life liberal or pro choice conservative, the pro life issue trumps. I’m more pro life than conservative, but I don’t think I’ll be confronted with that choice anytime soon.

If you vote ‘pro life’ in accordance with the definition provided in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, and the guidance provided by the Vatican in terms of upholding the “essence of moral law” (vatican.va/roman_curia/co…litica_en.html) it would be a good thing. If you compromise on the teaching in your voting I, personally, believe it is a bad thing.

Still can’t get a yes or a no. What does this mean? Does it mean a pro life guy with a conservative agenda does not align with church teaching as well as a pro choice guy with a liberal social agenda?

I also asked in post #255 if it was your intent to sway pro choice conservative Catholic voters to be open minded come election time to pro choice candidates. In response to that I got 2 weather reports that really didn’t say anything like, yes or no.

I can’t get into names who I vote because against the rules, but if ya send me a PM I’ll discuss it in more detail.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We believe that a fetus represents human life from the moment of fertizliation. However, personhood occurs when we are infused with a soul. For about 1400 years the Church held that occured at ‘quickening’, or first felt movement. Now we hold that we don’t know when it occurs. After ensoulment, abortion is a form of murder. Prior to ensoulment it is what Pope Pius IX described as “anticipted murder”.

Dead wrong – as science advanced, the Church adopted the scientifically absolute position – a human being is a human being from conception.

Originally Posted by SoCalRC
Yes. The concepts of ‘abortion is always murder’ and every fetus is a full fledged human being from conception are not Catholic doctrine or dogma. Our objection is more nuanced and, as it turns out, more in keeping with known human biology:

And that is dead wrong.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

 

[janechantal]

As words like Square was changed from fair and honest to outdated and naive…and Dope from an evil mind killer to pot.just a cutesy high…choice now means a mature caring person who just is PC and is also loving…as one whos daughter had to go down to Colombia to adopt and pay some $25000.00 for this lil angel.there is no way a temporary host…mom can kill that developing baby and still be 'Catholic" like Benedict Arnold…when he turned traitor one finds no reference to him anymore as Patriot Arnold…he should have been hanged like Robert E.Lee should have…for disgracing his oath…no one forces anyone to be a member of the one,holy apostolic Roman church…but like a righthanded batter running to third because its more convenient for him to do so since his completed swing has him facing third…instead of first…he would be tossed out…self ex-communication is there…so when ‘americas mayor’ performed the ultimate insult by receiving the scared Host yesterday ,it was like a pagan sitting at the last supper and smirking at Jesus…Thank God there was a site like Catholics against Rudy…I and others around the nation joined in a holy crusade against this evil man and he lost his bid…the very first part of the reasons why our Founders left England was" that all …are created by God with the right to life (!) liberty and the pursuit of happiness…the right to life is God given…governments role is to protect that right…May God have mercy on this sinful weak wristed nation of cowards…have a nice day

QUOTED FROM ABOVE…there is no way a temporary host…mom can kill that developing baby and still be 'Catholic" …

I THANK GOD THAT HE HAS DIVINE MERCY AND THAT ANYONE WHO REPENTS AND CONFESSES HIS/HER SIN TO GOD THROUGH THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION IS FORGIVEN WHEN THIS SIN IS TRULY CONFESSED WITH SORROW AND THE DESIRE TO CHANGE ONE’S LIFE. WHEN A MOM THAT ABORTS HER BABY DOES THIS REPENTANCE, SURELY WE CAN ONLY SAY, "PRAISE GOD, THAT SHE HAS SEEN HER SIN AND HAS ASKED GOD TO FORGIVE’…NOW IT IS UP TO US TO DO THE SAME. WE MUST BE CAREFUL OURSELVES NOT TO JUDGE BECAUSE WE, THEN, ARE TOLD THAT WE WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THE WAY WE JUDGE OTHERS. IT ISN’T EASY TO BE LOVING BUT WE MUST ALWAYS TRY…ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO SIN AND ASK FORGIVENESS. WITH THIS FORGIVENESS GIVEN, SURELY THEY ARE STILL “CATHOLICS”?

 

[Sham7]

I am “pro choice” but not in the sense that alot of “ProLife” catholics would define it. By the way there are a whole lot of catholics, everyday, not doing anything about the government sanctioned abortions. So, are they committing mortal sins?
Some in the above replies would contend that they are by omission. If it is murder, then why are not all the catholics
in outrage and storming the wall for these defenseless developing lives. The Catholic church does not say that one has to be “ProChoice” or “ProLife” in the sense that the folks who created those terms meant them to be for rhetorical advantage. Most Catholics that I know oppose abortion in the ideal, but actually use birth control and choose other like things that are not consistent with the Faith as to honoring life.(yes sinful)
I agree that we humans are commanded not to kill. So, if we vote to go to war are we “Pro choice”? yep Ideally, we Catholics should not kill whether it is abortion, war, euthansia, or ??? That would be “Pro choice” in its purest sense! So, I say quit bickering over this point and just be active to defeat all these evils. That is energy well spent.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s what the Church says about abortion:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Here’s what the Church says about war:

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

Here’s what the Church says about self-defense:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Here’s what the Church says about the death penalty:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

• We may not commit or support abortion.
• We should do all we can to avoid war, but when war is not avoidable, it is not a sin to use military force.
• We have a right and sometimes a duty to use force – even lethal force when it becomes necessary – to protect ourselves and those we have a duty to protect.
• The death penalty should be imposed sparingly, only when the criminal is fairly tried, and there is no other way to protect society.

 

[BamaRider]

Now everyone of y’all print the above post out and frame it, and post somewhere prominently where ya can read it everyday.

Dang Vern, that was the “mother of all posts.” LOL.

 

[BamaRider]

Nino got fired up and posted this-

As words like Square was changed from fair and honest to outdated and naive…and Dope from an evil mind killer to pot.just a cutesy high…choice now means a mature caring person who just is PC and is also loving…as one whos daughter had to go down to Colombia to adopt and pay some $25000.00 for this lil angel.there is no way a temporary host…mom can kill that developing baby and still be 'Catholic" like Benedict Arnold…when he turned traitor one finds no reference to him anymore as Patriot Arnold…he should have been hanged like Robert E.Lee should have…for disgracing his oath…no one forces anyone to be a member of the one,holy apostolic Roman church…but like a righthanded batter running to third because its more convenient for him to do so since his completed swing has him facing third…instead of first…he would be tossed out…self ex-communication is there…so when ‘americas mayor’ performed the ultimate insult by receiving the scared Host yesterday ,it was like a pagan sitting at the last supper and smirking at Jesus…Thank God there was a site like Catholics against Rudy…I and others around the nation joined in a holy crusade against this evil man and he lost his bid…the very first part of the reasons why our Founders left England was" that all …are created by God with the right to life (!) liberty and the pursuit of happiness…the right to life is God given…governments role is to protect that right…May God have mercy on this sinful weak wristed nation of cowards…have a nice day

http://bestsmileys.com/shooting1/22.gif

 

[SoCalRC]

Okay. So, you aren’t really talking about penalties, rather when the Church “dropped” the “distinction between animated (ensouled) and not animated,” she just clarified that abortion is evil from time of conception. The “penalties” for abortion didn’t change.

Actually, yes, the penalities changed. Abortions did not previously carry automatic excommunication. And early abortions carried a lighter penality. The Church did not change the teaching. That is we still believe that at one point the fetus is not ensouled, but the two tiers of punishment was dropped and the overall punishment was increased.

I’m sorry. I followed most of that…but what is “cranio.'s?”

Craniotomies, it was a form of late term abortion typically used when the mother was in extreme medical distress. It was specifically banned by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. Leo went further in 1886 banning all procedures, including those intended to save the mother’s life. It was at that point that excommunication became automatic and extended to all abortions.

Ah…so, you are talking about, for example, aborting of children with Down’s Syndrome, other birth defects, girls (due to a desire for boys)…? Got it.

Any physical deformity. This is still practice, as ritualistic infanticide, in pockets of Christianity even today.

For partial birth abortion, I thought you were commenting on recent stances of the Church (along with those evil, anti-Catholic evangelicals ) against the practice. I think that is just a matter of the incremental war that we have to wage politically against abortion. We can’t get the whole thing banned at this point, so we start with what we can. IOW…as you said, it is not related to scientific advances. Rather, it is “responding to society.” Is that correct?

Procedures like craniotomies, really are partial birth abortions. And we can find them all the way back to Tertullian (who, interestingly, described the procedure as inarguably moral and just). The so-called ‘partial birth abortion ban’ deals with a procedure most often used in response to medical problems in the 2nd trimester. The problem I have with the ban is that no one, not the people who wrote it, not the lawmakers who passed it, or the judges who upheld it, believes that it will stop a single abortion.

However, the same folks gladly have mislead the public on the effect of the ban. Even the name is designed for pure emotion. So, it seems like pure politics and power play to me. If you want to go after abortions, look at the 1 million first trimester abortions, or the hundred thousand plus ectopic terminations. Going after the 2,000 most heartbreaking cases, like two twins dying, one aborted intact to save the other) with a ban that will do nothing other than force both twins to be aborted and the mother to run additional risk of uterine bleeding?

All abortions are wrong, but when you are trying to win hearts and minds, this does not seem how one would go about it. On the other hand, if you are interested in lots of fanfare for no real effect…

 

[Grace_Angel]

And thank you for your response.

One who feels abortion should be “a choice” and should not be illegal, who says “we can’t force our beliefs on others” believes, willy-nilly, that the unborn child is not human. It’s that simple.

Aand further to the above one should not call themselves “catholic”. Abortion is excommunication material.
GraceAngel.

 

[Grace_Angel]

What a idealistic concept. If you choose to have 100 children it’s your CHOICE.
It’s easy to condemn others isn’t it? When parents sexually abuse and impregnate their own children then what? Are they forced to carry the next pregnancy to term?
How many “Pro-life” people have actually worked with children who have been sexually abused by their own parents? What anger me is the self-righteous,head in the clouds people who live in a fantasy world. I have recently worked with an 11 yr old girl who was abused by her own parents. Both parents. She terminated the pregnancy by a court order. She is suffering. Most of us can’t imagine such horror. Pray for her! At least she had a choice!

Cases of incest amount to one half of one percent of abortions.

Now that we’ve talked about that, how do you justify the other 99 1/2 %.

I have worked with ssexual abuse of the incest variety, and abortion. And I still would like to ask you the question, that child conceived, how did he/she come to be at fault? If it is alive and living I would suggest that God has a say in that life.
Would killing the baby make the incest go away?
Your post is lunacy. Your post is of someone who is very very angry. A child conceived is a child conceived.
GraceAngel.

 

[SoCalRC]

Here’s what the Church says about abortion:

Read CCC 2270 closely, word by word. Where does it say that we must accept simultaneous animation?

The Church says the opposite, just as I stated, simultaneous animation is not relevent, or even widely accepted:

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Regarding the death penalty, you are playing Cafeteria Catholicism. Read the declaration about the Catechism you quoted earlier. The primary audience are the Bishops and the Universal Catachism does not supercede local Catachisms (provided they are “approved”). So, the definitive source would be the UNITED STATES CATECHISM FOR ADULTS, published by the USCCB. It is approved and states that our increased use of the death penalty is detrimental to society. It also quotes the Pope, speaking in St. Louis, in support of its stance that our use is, overwhelmingly unjust.

That is, the Pope did not just speak in general, but in our particular. So, we look to Dogma:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” -Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church

The Pope spoke forcefully about the US use of the death penalty. The teaching is in the universal Catechism. The US Bishops are in agreement with the Pope, the teaching was included in the US Catechism. The teaching has been reinforced by two Encyclicals, including one arguing that it is connected to three infallible teachings.

Regarding War, your logic is failing you. The existance of the possibility of a just war does not make all wars just. CCC 2309 lays out criteria that must be met. Subsequent sections lay out additional constraints. For example:

"Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions…" CCC 2313

Notice ‘law of nations’ with regard to the treatment of prisoners.