Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[vern_humphrey]

Why does a pro-choice person get to tell a pro-life people whether they are pro-life or not, or what they need to support in order to be pro-life?

It works like this:

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:

(My emphasis)

But the Catechism says this:

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

Apparently there are some who think their opinons – however wrong and at odds with the Church they may be – are automatically Catholic dogma.

 

[liotino]

It would be a graver sin and morally wrong to let the mother die when there is zero chance of saving the unborn. There can be no morally defensible position for withholding medical treatment in such circumstances.

 

[liotino]

It seems to me we place “ourselves” in the position of determining who lives who dies. It is NOT OUR CALL it is God’s will in all things concerning life and death. Life is given by God who determines the journeys end here. However, I cannot remember all the words in the bible therefore if anyone can show me the “but” in the words Thou shall not kill I am all eyes.

 

[SoCalRC]

It works like this:

(My emphasis)

But the Catechism says this:

But I cited the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, elaborating, in detail, on the subject of procurred abortion. Are you now proclaiming that the Pope and Prefect approved a document that is at odds with Church teaching?

If you read carefully, you will find that nothing in the Catechism quotes contracts either the quote from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith, or my statement. In fact, the same distinctions apply. We assert only that human life begins at conception, we do not assert to know when the human soul is infussed.

After the soul is infused, killing the fetus is murder. Before that, it is not murder. We see it, as Pope Pius IX referred to it when he removed the distinction of “animated fetus” from Catholic teaching, as “anticipated murder”. It is, we believe, always gravely immoral, but it is not always murder. That is why we use two different terms, abortion and murder, both in the Catechism and in the Code of Canon Law.

Apparently there are some who think their opinons – however wrong and at odds with the Church they may be – are automatically Catholic dogma.

Fortunately, Popes speak and write a lot, and approve lots of documents. So we can get it from the Mother Church, instead of via a Evangelical Protestant filter.

You, more than others, can appreciate and realize what human life is in itself, and what it is worth in the eyes of sane reason, before your moral conscience, before civil society, before the Church and, above all, what it is worth in the eyes of God. God created all earthly things for man; and man himself, as regards his being and his essence, has been created for God and not for any other creature, even if, as regards his actions, he has obligations towards the community as well. The child is “man,” even if he be not yet born, in the same degree and by the same title as his mother.

Besides, every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all—whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral—that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal which aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a very noble act; but the direct killing of the child as a means to such an end is illicit. The direct destruction of so-called “useless lives,” already born or still in the womb, practiced extensively a few years ago, can in no wise be justified. Therefore, when this practice was initiated, the Church expressly declared that it was against the natural law and the divine positive law, and consequently that it was unlawful to kill, even by order of the public authorities, those who were innocent, even if on account of some physical or mental defect, they were useless to the State and a burden upon it. The life of an innocent person is sacrosanct, and any direct attempt or aggression against it is a violation of one of the fundamental laws without which secure human society is impossible. We have no need to teach you in detail the meaning and the gravity, in your profession, of this fundamental law. But never forget this: there rises above every human law and above every “indication” the faultless law of God. - Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwifes (emphasis added)

You may be certain that destroying a ‘useless’ life for the sake of another is just, but the Church is consistant and clear.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But I cited the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, elaborating, in detail, on the subject of procurred abortion. Are you now proclaiming that the Pope and Prefect approved a document that is at odds with Church teaching?

Do you claim the Catechism is “at odds with Church teaching?” From John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter introducing the Catechism:

This edition was prepared by an Interdicasterial Commission which I appointed for this purpose in 1993. Presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, this Commission worked diligently to fulfill the mandate it received. It devoted particular attention to a study of the many suggested changes to the contents of the text, which in these years had come from around the world and from various parts of the ecclesial community.

In this regard one can certainly understand that such a remarkable number of suggested improvements shows the extraordinary interest that the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine,

(My empahsis)

If you read carefully, you will find that nothing in the Catechism quotes contracts either the quote from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith, or my statement. In fact, the same distinctions apply. We assert only that human life begins at conception, we do not assert to know when the human soul is infussed.

You said:

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 I posted a quote from the Catechism:

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

You have been proved categorically wrong.

 

[SoCalRC]

It would be a graver sin and morally wrong to let the mother die when there is zero chance of saving the unborn. There can be no morally defensible position for withholding medical treatment in such circumstances.

If you are weak and I am strong, is it OK for me to kill you and eat you if it is the only way for one of us to survive?

Following Christ is not easy. He specifically warned us of that. So, why should we expect our teaching on life to be easy?

We hold that life is a gift of infinite value. Further, we hold that the distinctions we see between ourselves are meaningless. Just as we are all made equal by our unworthiness in mass, every life is made equal by God’s infinite love. So, we treasure life equally, in “every stage” and in “every form”.

This is well explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38.

From a Catholic point of view the problem with your assertion is that it requires us to presume that the ill fated fetus life is of lesser value than the mother’s. This is emotionally understandable. The mother looks like us, relates to us, shares our experiences. We understand instinctively, and deeply, the effect of her loss on others. But, though the Church sees these feelings as, themselves, laudable, it also considers this a failure to see the fetus for what it truly is, and equal, infinitely loved, creation of God.

In other words, it is a failure to truly see the fetus as our neighbor and truly love it as we love ourselves. In that light, the Church instructs caregivers to treat both as equal patients, with no preference to the other. Better to have two natural deaths than one abortion or murder (both infallibly held to be grave moral disorders).

This is, by no means, an easy teaching. And Catholics obtain abortions of medical necessity all the time. The question is, do we accept this as another failure on our parts, or do we argue that the Church is wrong and out of touch and lower the bar?

 

[SoCalRC]

Do you claim the Catechism is “at odds with Church teaching?” From John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter introducing the Catechism:

John Paul II approved the documents from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith as well.

I don’t disagree that you are posting from the Catechism, I am simply asserting that you do not understand it. You have a point of view, largely Evangelical Protestant, and the psuedo certainty that it is right.

You have been proved categorically wrong.

It is also intriguing to me how internal consistancy is not a requirement in your lines of thought. I agree with Pope John Paul II on the death penalty - a teaching raised in the same encyclical where he proclaimed abortion, murder, and euthanasia to be connected and infallibly grave moral disorders, you do not.

I agree with the Church’s teaching with regards to fetal life, including the statements from the Tribunal of the Holy office in 1902, Papal statement in 1951, the Second Vatican Council, Doctrinal Note (1973, 1974, 1989), and Papal Encyclical, you do not.

Since you reject the teachings, why are you so certain that you understand them?

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m thinkin the SoCal is working to change the vote of conservative Catholics, but I’m telling y’all come this fall NOT a single red state is gonna flip. No sir, not based on the avaiallbe choices. I will add the reverse is not true. I’m seeing a 2-3 blue states come into play, but even if they don’'t, not gonna matter.

Hard to fool the folks in Flyover country.

And ya heard it here first LOL., so give it a break SoCal.

I think we’ve already established that your “thinkin”, particularly with regards to peering into the hearts and minds of others, is a bit unreliable.

I’ve merely noted that we are all ‘pro choice’ Catholics in one sense or another. All of us end up making compromises on what the Vicar of Christ and the Mother Church have declared to be non-negotiable in voting. So, unless someone here is proclaiming themself to be the second coming, born without sin, and is correcting the Church, none of us follows truly and perfectly on Jesus’ path. So if we truly mean what we profess in Mass, that we desire to be granted unity and peace, than we might do well not to proclaim certain moral superiority over the choices of other Catholics.

Hardly a new concept, we can find it in the New Testament as a teaching from Christ. Do you suppose that Jesus was part of a George Soros evil plot? If so, that might explain why some Evangelicals detest us Catholics - what with our insistance on the continued relevance of Christ’s earthly message and all…

 

[Valke2]

It seems to me we place “ourselves” in the position of determining who lives who dies. It is NOT OUR CALL it is God’s will in all things concerning life and death. Life is given by God who determines the journeys end here. However, I cannot remember all the words in the bible therefore if anyone can show me the “but” in the words Thou shall not kill I am all eyes.

Then why even have a medical establishment?

Every death in war, the criminal justice system, self defense, all these would be in violation of the commandment, under your interpertation?

 

[SoCalRC]

There are two main camps: those who are part of the problem and those who are part of the solution.

That’s the distinction. Psuedo certainty about having the one ‘true’ solution, despite a complete lack of measurable evidence to support such a view.

Those who focus their efforts on what they perceive to be related problems, or even other reflections of our pro life teachings (like insisting on a culture that does not torture people to death without even due process), are labeled as part of the problem.

I agree with your conclusion but disagree that it is because the issues have been attacked individually but rather because they have not been. This is the whole problem with the “seamless garment” and “the faith is a seamless whole” arguments. Legal abortion could be ended if Catholics focused on this issue to the - temporary - exclusion of the others.

It is the Church that asserts that Catholic teachings cannot meaningfully be taken in isolation, not I. Though I do agree.

You’ve given a party control of all three branches of government. Even had them put 5 Catholic judges on the Supreme Court (including the chief justice). I’ve seen little to suggest that there will ever be meaningful progress on the legality of abortion, let alone the real problem of abortions themselves.

Anyone who has spent time with many of these potential mothers can tell you it is possible to make a difference. Abortion is at the end of social ‘disease’. The best ‘treatments’ are generally long before. But we focus on this as a matter of secular law because that fits our politics. It’s easy, it plays on our emotions, and best of all, it doesn’t really ask anything of us. We don’t really have to lift a finger or part with a dime.

The problem is when we confuse the pursuit of earthly power with answering Christ’s call. Hence the Church warns:

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Tackling ‘one at a time’ is certainly a common thought, but it is not in keeping with our Dogmatic belief. As the quote above notes, if you elevate something to special status and convince yourself it justifies compromise on ‘lesser evils’, you potentially undermine what you profess to be striving to improve.

Further, you risk delegating your true and full Christian responsibility. In which case, by our beliefs, you have already doomed yourself to failure, since the good arises not from our acts, but from the grace of God.

Note: Unlike Protestants, we Cathlics believe that Christian acts are, themselves, with merit. But, the outcome is in the hands of God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

John Paul II approved the documents from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith as well.

I don’t disagree that you are posting from the Catechism, I am simply asserting that you do not understand it.

What part is it I don’t understand? This part?

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.

Or this part?

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.”

You have a point of view, largely Evangelical Protestant, and the psuedo certainty that it is right.

An attempt to smear one’s opponent is a sure sign one has run out of logic and evidence.

It is also intriguing to me how internal consistancy is not a requirement in your lines of thought. I agree with Pope John Paul II on the death penalty - a teaching raised in the same encyclical where he proclaimed abortion, murder, and euthanasia to be connected and infallibly grave moral disorders, you do not.

Please state how I disagree with this:

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 are 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 non-existent.”

I agree with the Church’s teaching with regards to fetal life, including the statements from the Tribunal of the Holy office in 1902, Papal statement in 1951, the Second Vatican Council, Doctrinal Note (1973, 1974, 1989), and Papal Encyclical, you do not.

And yet you say things like this:

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:

Since you reject the teachings, why are you so certain that you understand them?

I not only do not reject the teachings of the Church, I defend them against arguments such as those you make.

 

[liotino]

Then why even have a medical establishment?

Every death in war, the criminal justice system, self defense, all these would be in violation of the commandment, under your interpertation?

Clarification: I believe in medical the establishment being a former nurse…I have witness many miracles when the “medical establishment” gave less than a hopeful prognoises and against all odds patients recovered. I have seen Doctors strong arm patients families in taking a patient off the ventilator only to see the patient recover and leave the hospital. I have seen woman being told to end a pregnancy because it would be a determent to their lives and refuse to listen to the doctor and live as well as the child. When medical science cannot do anymore for the mother and or the child she is carrying it is in God’s hands. When we kill the fetus we take it out of God’s hands.
Not all war is justify… War is another whole can of worms…I am against the death penalty…Self defense is just that “Self-Defense”…
We play God when we think we are here to make that decision on who lives who dies to think we can is the height of arrogance spitting in the face of God.

 

[SoCalRC]

Then why even have a medical establishment?

There is nothing wrong with ministering to the sick. In fact, it appears to be something critical for our own salvation (ex. Matt 25). And, in some circumstances, a care giver must make difficult choices. For example, I’ve served as a combat medic and had at least one instance where I had to make a difficult decision. I decided that one person’s chances were very slim, so I passed over him to treat others first.

It was a difficult decision and I am not, to this day, convinced that I was correct. But the Church does not condemn it. It is something that is really between me and God.

However, if I had made the decision on who to treat and in what order because of the color of their skin, our faith does have something to say. Similiarly, had I not just been passive, but active - say I had used the drugs at my disposal to expedite a ‘hopeless’ case’s death to free me up to help others, or even out of misguided compassion, the Church again has something to say.

Every death in war, the criminal justice system, self defense, all these would be in violation of the commandment, under your interpertation?

Although many Catholics struggle with the teaching, the Catholic Church now considers the use of the death penalty to be illicit in most cases.

War and self defense are interesting subjects in their own right. Christians were overwhelmingly pacifist in the first few centuries. Tertullian, who we quote a great deal about abortion wrote that any Christian who is in the army should either quit the army, or be prepared to be martyred for not fighting.

St. Augustine introduced the concept of ‘just war’. Interestingly, he did not believe in a right to personal self defense. Just war was based on the idea of the defense of one’s neighbor, a form of ‘loving’ them. Self defense was seen as a contradiction to Christ’s admonishments of “enough of this” and “turn the other cheek”.

The idea of the right to defend our own lives came later.

 

[vern_humphrey]

St. Augustine introduced the concept of ‘just war’. Interestingly, he did not believe in a right to personal self defense.

Not true – St. Thomas Aquinas interpreted St Augustine’s comment, “How are they free from sin in the sight of divine providence who, for the sake of these contemnible things have taken a human life?” to mean Augustine was including self-defense when he was actually talking about taking life in the defense of property.

Just war was based on the idea of the defense of one’s neighbor, a form of ‘loving’ them. Self defense was seen as a contradiction to Christ’s admonishments of “enough of this” and “turn the other cheek”.

Again, misinterpretations on your part. Slapping a person on the cheek was a form of insult amongst the Jews. Christ meant that one should not respond to a clearly non-lethal attack with violence.

Christ did not say, “If a man rapes and kills your wife, stand by while he does it, and let him do the same to your daughter.”

The idea of the right to defend our own lives came later.

Self-defense is nowhere forbidden by Christ, and was a well-established principle in the Old Testament. The Church has never forbidden self-defense.

 

[BamaRider]

First SoCal said this-

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:

So Vern quoted this from the Cathechism, something he devoutly believes and defends-

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

Amen.

So then SoCal told Vern he didn’t understand what he just read by sayin this-

don’t disagree that you are posting from the Catechism, I am simply asserting that you do not understand it. You have a point of view, largely Evangelical Protestant, and the psuedo certainty that it is right.

I leave it to the individuals reading these post to determine who understands Church Doctrine.

 

[BamaRider]

On Post #255 I made this comment

I’m thinkin the SoCal is working to change the vote of conservative Catholics, but I’m telling y’all come this fall NOT a single red state is gonna flip. No sir, not based on the avaiallbe choices. I will add the reverse is not true. I’m seeing a 2-3 blue states come into play, but even if they don’'t, not gonna matter.

Then SoCal responded with-

think we’ve already established that your “thinkin”, particularly with regards to peering into the hearts and minds of others, is a bit unreliable.

So I’ll ask him- So you’re not interested in flipping conservative pro life Catholics from your side of the political spectrum, which you’ve aptly described in hundreds of posts?

To answer my own question, I engage liberal thinking because I think it is bad for the Church and the Country.

These forums are not gonna change the hearts and minds of the hardcore on either side, but there are thousands out here who seldom think about this stuff, and really don’t know what side of the fence to come down on. This thread serves that purpose well, a lurker can scroll back, read the debate, and see for himself which side is the most consistent, and from there make a choice.

 

[SoCalRC]

First SoCal said this-

So Vern quoted this from the Cathechism, something he devoutly believes and defends-

Amen.

So then SoCal told Vern he didn’t understand what he just read by sayin this-

The Catechism explains “human life”. The distinction is explained, at length, by the Church in two doctrinal notes from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (approved by the Pope of course).

We hold, infallibly, that abortion is always gravely immoral. We hold, infallibly, that murder is always gravely immoral. We do not hold that abortion is always murder.

In fact, Pope Innocent III declared that it is not. St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed. Pope Gregory XIV reaffirmed it. The distinction was reflected in the Catechism until 1920.

When Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction, he specifically stated that the fetus is inarguably not animated. That is, we do not consider abortion gravely immoral only when it is murder, but in all other cases.

As I quoted above, the Church reaffirmed this position in a Doctrinal Note regarding abortion 30 years ago and again in a Doctrinal Note regarding questions of the use of fetal tissue 20 years ago.

I cannot help rather or not written Catholic doctrine matches what you want to assert to be inarguably true or not. The fact remains that, by there own statements, many folks here proclaiming virtue disagree with the Church on important issues.

For example, you find the torture of detainees wholly acceptable. This is utterly rejected by the Catechism (CCC 2313).

Ender believes that trusting in God and following the Church is ‘the problem’ and that trust is better placed in the politcal mechanisms of men. If you read “Part One: The Profession of Faith” from the Catechism, you will see that we reject this, en masse, each week when we recite the Nicene Creed.

And Vern has just recently affirmed, again, that he considers a fetal termination for the sake of the mother’s life wholly acceptable and just. This directly contradicts the section of the Catechism he just cited, as well as the Doctrinal Notes, Encyclical References, and Papal quotes I provided.

You are free to believe these things. But you are not free to redefine Catholicism. That is for the Vicar of Christ.

 

[rlg94086]

You are free to believe these things. But you are not free to redefine Catholicism. That is for the Vicar of Christ.

You might want to use different words. I don’t think too many Catholics scholars or Bishops would agree that the Vicar of Christ “redefines” Catholicism. I’ve heard Protestants make that charge before though…

 

[vern_humphrey]

You might want to use different words. I don’t think too many Catholics scholars or Bishops would agree that the Vicar of Christ “redefines” Catholicism. I’ve heard Protestants make that charge before though…

Help me out here. Who was it going around and accusing other people of thinking like Protestants?

 

[vern_humphrey]

We hold, infallibly, that abortion is always gravely immoral. We hold, infallibly, that murder is always gravely immoral. We do not hold that abortion is always murder.

And just which encyclical are you quoting there?