Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[BamaRider]

In post #338 Vern posted verbatim Church Doctrine and Biblical Scripture, then asked this simple question-

Do you accept that or not?

To which I predict a loooooooong weather report from the SoCal that will try to deflect having to answer with a yea or nah.

 

[SoCalRC]

No, you have pushed a red herring on us. The Church’s definitive statement is found in the Catechism, in paragraphs 2270 and following:

No, the Catachism is a ‘Cliff note’, it is the teaching in relatively brief format. That is why there are so many footnotes and cross references in the printed version.

A more definitive explanation would be Papal Decrees and Doctrinal Notes specifically on the subject at hand. I fully accept the Catechism, and I fully accept the more extensive explanation of the teaching from the Church. You originally professed to strongly disagree, now you seem intent on reframing the ‘argument’ by portraying me as some sort of ‘pro abortionist’. Which is odd, since you are the only one who has expressed a specific belief about abortion being licit using arguments expressly dismissed by the Church in this thread.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’ll also go along with concept if it came down to pulling info out of kook…

So, what you are saying is that Catholicism is OK, but when push comes to shove, it isn’t ‘practical’?

It is odd that you are talking a lot about liberty and history. I volunteered and served in a war that I did not, personally, support. You don’t even appear to be willing to pay for a war that you claim to support.

My father always said that you can tell what a person really believes in by what they’ll spend their own blood and money on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, the Catachism is a ‘Cliff note’, it is the teaching in relatively brief format. That is why there are so many footnotes and cross references in the printed version.

Are you saying you don’t accept the Catechism?

A more definitive explanation would be Papal Decrees and Doctrinal Notes specifically on the subject at hand. I fully accept the Catechism, and I fully accept the more extensive explanation of the teaching from the Church. You originally professed to strongly disagree, now you seem intent on reframing the ‘argument’ by portraying me as some sort of ‘pro abortionist’. Which is odd, since you are the only one who has expressed a specific belief about abortion being licit using arguments expressly dismissed by the Church in this thread.

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,

But you know better, right?

 

[SoCalRC]

In post #338 Vern posted verbatim Church Doctrine and Biblical Scripture, then asked this simple question-

To which I predict a loooooooong weather report from the SoCal that will try to deflect having to answer with a yea or nah.

Since I have repeatedly stated that I fully accept the Church’s position from the beginning (and countless threads in the past), it was the question itself that was an intentional deception.

In this thread Vern has stated a set of conditions that he considers an abortion morally licit. I quoted the Church disagreeing. You insist that torture is morallly licit in some cases. I quoted the Church disagreeing.

Since it is the two of you who have already stated that you do not fully agree with the Church, why would this line of argument even make sense?

It would be much more relevant and honest to discuss your own, admitted, departures from Catholic Doctrine rather than try to label me with false ones.

Just because the tactic works on wingnut radio does not mean that it is appropriate here. Still, it seems to be a conditioned response. Note Fix’s response above. His first quote is, in fact, the Church’s position - which I have quoted and endorsed.

His second is a ‘lie’ which has never been uttered here. I have repeatedly stated that the Church has never been pro-choice, abortion has always been a sin. But it is nonsensical to protend that changes that can be seen in our Catechism and various Christian writings and Papal decrees never occured.

Jesus was born into essentially the only remotely pro-life culture of the time - Jews largely condemned abortion and utterly condemned infanticide. They were essentially alone (Philo of Alexandria vehemently condemns other cultures for this in his writings). We insisted that this be carried into gentile Christianity - though it took a thousand years to largely stamp out infanticide among the faithful. It is a history to be proud off, as is our growing understanding of the true, inalienable rights of the human person. Altering it not only makes us look dishonest and foolish, it gives the perception that we find our own arguments weak.

 

[BamaRider]

So, what you are saying is that Catholicism is OK, but when push comes to shove, it isn’t ‘practical’?

Noooooooo, what I’m sayin when it comes to defending myself, and others, the Church says I have a right to defend myself, something you don’t agree with, to which I say OK, believe what ya want.

 

[SoCalRC]

Are you saying you don’t accept the Catechism?

No, I am saying that I accept the interpretation of the Catechism provided by the Church and the Vicar of Christ. Further, I accept the local Catechism, which the Apostolic Letter you cite notes is not superceded.

From John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, introducing the Catechism:

But you know better, right?

It is “expository”, that is why the Church sometimes deems it necessary to provide Doctrinal Notes to explain specific subjects and implications in greater detail.

 

[SoCalRC]

Noooooooo, what I’m sayin when it comes to defending myself, and others, the Church says I have a right to defend myself, something you don’t agree with, to which I say OK, believe what ya want.

No, you are again mistating my position. The Catechism does allow for some right to self defense. However, we are not Protestants. If the Pope and the Magesterium argue that something is not a licit application of self defense, that opinion is Dogmatically decreed to carry much more weight than your individual opinion. It is supposed to be treated with “reverence”.

The Church has deemed that torture of prisoners is not a licit form of self defense. Just as it deemed that abortion of a medically dangerous pregnancy is not a licit form of maternal self defense. And, similiarly, just as the Church teaches that the use of the death penalty, specifically in the United States is, by and large, not licit.

You and/or Vern disagree with all these positions to some degree. But rationalizing your opinion against the Universal Catechism does not make it legitimate Catholicism. Read the following:

“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.” - LUMEN GENTIUM (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

These concepts are also clearly reflected in the Catechism, just read what we mean when we recite “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” each week in Mass.

 

[rlg94086]

You are, again, missing the point. Notice you laid the criteria of “viable”. Why does a party have to be viable? Do you have more trust in earthly political powers than the power of God?

Well, if your goal is to start a non-viable political party, I think I would have to question your sanity. “I don’t have more trust in earthly political powers than the power of God” - that is a baseless question.

Btw…a few things this Catholic Party’s platform would need to include, in order for me to support it:

1. Amending the Constitution to protect the rights of the unborn, the infirm and the elderly.
2. Federalism, based on the principle of subsidiarity - any social programs should be administered and funded as close to the people, as possible. Any “minimum wage” should be decided as close to the people as possible - district or county should be sufficient.
3. Minimal/reasonable tax burden, as a large tax burden would be contrary to Church teaching.
4. A good energy policy - (that’s for you Ribozyme )
5. Amending the Constitution to define a marriage, so we can stop all of the nonsense about Gay Marriage.

Okay…now, when do we start?

 

[Sham7]

Where is the “ProLife” in the Iraq war as started by the good
ole US of A? no excuse, no justification, just plain wrong

I pray for an end of this evil situation and that our troops are brought home as soon as possible.

Amen,
sham7

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

To pretend that to be pro-choice is not to be pro-abortion is intellectually dishonest.

That statement hits the nail ***SQUARE ***on the head. Thats the problem with these pseudo-Catholic politicians who claim to be Catholics in good standing, yet support abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. etc. It is intellectual dishonesty in no uncertain terms. Its like saying that one’s conscience is his or her highest moral authority. They are forgetting that we have an obligation to correctly form our conscience and not blindly follow feelings. Its like Jane Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft gun in North Viet Nam and saying, if it feels so right, how can it be wrong. Even Snoopy has more intellectual acumen than that. Thanks Vern, you were right on.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Ender]

We are talking about a document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by our last Pope, prepared by our current one as Prefect. Are you asserting that you are a better authority on the proper application of Catholic doctrine?

I am asserting that we disagree on what these documents mean and that I have seen nothing to convince me that you are a better authority on interpreting it than I. If you weren’t so stuck on making me out as a dissenter from Church doctrine you would have less trouble understanding what I’m saying. I don’t expect you to agree with me but I did expect you to at least comprehend my position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church has deemed that torture of prisoners is not a licit form of self defense. Just as it deemed that abortion of a medically dangerous pregnancy is not a licit form of maternal self defense. And, similiarly, just as the Church teaches that the use of the death penalty, specifically in the United States is, by and large, not licit.

Where does the Church state that torture is an illicit form of self defense? The catechism does not refer to torture and self defense in the same context.

This has gotten to be a rather long thread and I’m losing track of who believes what. How do you answer the OP? Do you believe a Catholic can be pro-choice? (You might want to provide your own definition of what it means to be pro-choice so there is no confusion about what you are claiming.)

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I am saying that I accept the interpretation of the Catechism provided by the Church and the Vicar of Christ. Further, I accept the local Catechism, which the Apostolic Letter you cite notes is not superceded.

It is “expository”, that is why the Church sometimes deems it necessary to provide Doctrinal Notes to explain specific subjects and implications in greater detail.

Ah, the Catechism doesn’t really mean what it says, and you have been ordained to explain the real meaning to the rest of us.

 

[BamaRider]

Ender got tired of all this back and forth stuff so asked this-

This has gotten to be a rather long thread and I’m losing track of who believes what. How do you answer the OP? Do you believe a Catholic can be pro-choice? (You might want to provide your own definition of what it means to be pro-choice so there is no confusion about what you are claiming.)

That’s a good question. Here’s my answer- NO. A Catholic that votes and enables pro choice candidates is wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s the Church’s answer:

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

The answer is clearly, “no.”

 

[BamaRider]

Here’s the Church’s answer:

The answer is clearly, “no.”

But Vern according to some, you don’t understand what ya just read, and need to check the footnotes.

I reckon me and you just need to go back to clutching our guns and our Faith, cause we have nothing else to cling to when times get hard. You know how it is in small towns. LOL.

 

[Al_Masetti]

But Vern according to some, you don’t understand what ya just read, and need to check the footnotes.

I reckon me and you just need to go back to clutching our guns and our Faith, cause we have nothing else to cling to when times get hard. You know how it is in small towns. LOL.

Yup … small towns …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=137902

Hey, how come it’s ok according to liberal doctrine to be pro-choice as regards abortion, but not ok to be pro-choice when it comes to schools for the kids, or right to carry, or smoking cigarettes, or wearing helmets while riding a non-motorized bicycle … next thing you know, you will have to wear a helmet while using a staircase.

Seems to me to be a relevant question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But Vern according to some, you don’t understand what ya just read, and need to check the footnotes.

I reckon me and you just need to go back to clutching our guns and our Faith, cause we have nothing else to cling to when times get hard. You know how it is in small towns. LOL.

I looked up a word often used in these debates, “Nuance.” Turns out it’s French for, “It don’t mean what it says, it means what I want it to mean.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yup … small towns …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=137902

Hey, how come it’s ok according to liberal doctrine to be pro-choice as regards abortion, but not ok to be pro-choice when it comes to schools for the kids, or right to carry, or smoking cigarettes, or wearing helmets while riding a non-motorized bicycle … next thing you know, you will have to wear a helmet while using a staircase.

Seems to me to be a relevant question.

“Pro-Choice” is another French term. It means, “You don’t get to choose. *** I ***get to choose for you/”