Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[catholicbuckeye]

Do you have any evidence to support that? It does not make the sin less grievous, but all the secular evidence suggests that use of abortion as birth control is essentially non existant.

The vast majority of the women procurring abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line. Roughly half are already mothers. The vast majority report finding the decision extremely difficult and having post abortion doubts. This should not be surprising, 27% of them report being Catholic - we are disproportionately represented.

I know it is easier to think of them as lazy sluts instead of say, terrified young girls, but are we not instructed to love them every bit as much as the unborn children they chose to abort?

Isn’t RU-486 (I believe is the name) used as a contraceptive but is also known to be an abortifascient (sp)?

Also, very nitpicky here (and admittedly not very relevant) but at 27%, I believe that is very slightly more than the 25-26% of all Americans who are Catholic. Definitely within the margin for error!

 

[catholicbuckeye]

How can pro-choice not be in favor of abortion?

If I considered it my neighbor’s “choice” to beat his wife, and supported legislation to protect his “right” to do that, would I not be in favor of wife-beating?

There are some people on this post who are convinced you can be (pro-Choice and yet against abortion)! And people say our society has gone mad.

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

I am not sure that I can agree with you. I, myself, cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. However, I can at least envision how some Catholics may sincerely believe that secular law is utterly ineffectual in addressing abortion.

After all, the Church tried an absolute ban, with even a possible sentence of death, for about three years, reportedly to try to control the rampant prostitution in Rome. It was, by all accounts, a failure, and was rescinded. Instead of stopping abortions, it simply stopped people from coming to confession.

The Pope has spoken on the matter, and we are compelled to listen and obey with proper reverence. But we are also compelled to follow the absolute certainty of our own moral conscience. If a Catholic were convinced that the increased maternal deaths from abortion prohibition are an avoidable attack on human life, I would believe that Catholic is incorrect, but I could not bring myself to argue that my position is unerringly rightous and his/her was not.

MY ANSWER

These first two paragraphs suggest you have great sympathy with those who believe that changing secular law on abortion is ineffectual. You have great sympathy too for the Catholics who prefer safe legal abortions to maternal deaths from unsafe illegal abortions.

You cannot bring yourself to argue that your own position is unerringly righteous and his/her not, yet you have no problem throughout this thread demonstrating your unerring righteousness and your opponents not. Whilst professing 100% adherence to Catholic Teachings, you have undermined those Catholics who are avowed anti abortion by unduly stressing other pro life issues such as capital punishment, torture and euthanasia.

In England, capital punishment is not an issue. Torture is rarely mentioned because probably no politician would admit to its justification and most likely be offended if asked for their views on it. Euthanasia is widely discussed and the increasing pressure to legislate for it is battled in the main by the Christian Churches, the pro life movement and a fair proportion of the medical field who recognize the dangers.

The term “Pro Choice” is widely understood to refer only to abortion and much argument would have been saved if the original quote had made it clear what the title of the thread actually meant. In my experience, when the other life issues are brought into the discussion about abortion, it is a means of criticism of the militancy shown by anti abortionists.

You accuse others of making unqualified statements but have made a few yourself. You deny that abortion is used as a form of birth control but I contend that it is the ultimate form of birth control - why else would a woman have one? You claim that abortion is a poverty issue and I don’t believe it is. If poverty justified abortions the third world wouldn’t be having childen. More middle class women have abortions because a child interferes with their education and career. The poor working class are much more likely to give birth because they value education much less and often feel that giving birth is actually something they are good at. Young poor women are provided with benefits and housing they couldn’t afford on the low wages paid by menial jobs. Thank God for them because the dearth of babies in our culture would be even more perilous without them.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

SoCalRC;3605585:

I am not sure that I can agree with you. I, myself, cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. However, I can at least envision how some Catholics may sincerely believe that secular law is utterly ineffectual in addressing abortion.

After all, the Church tried an absolute ban, with even a possible sentence of death, for about three years, reportedly to try to control the rampant prostitution in Rome. It was, by all accounts, a failure, and was rescinded. Instead of stopping abortions, it simply stopped people from coming to confession.

The Pope has spoken on the matter, and we are compelled to listen and obey with proper reverence. But we are also compelled to follow the absolute certainty of our own moral conscience. If a Catholic were convinced that the increased maternal deaths from abortion prohibition are an avoidable attack on human life, I would believe that Catholic is incorrect, but I could not bring myself to argue that my position is unerringly rightous and his/her was not.

These first two paragraphs suggest you have great sympathy with those who believe that changing secular law on abortion is ineffectual. You have great sympathy too for the Catholics who prefer safe legal abortions to maternal deaths from unsafe illegal abortions.

You cannot bring yourself to argue that your own position is unerringly righteous and his/her not, yet you have no problem throughout this thread demonstrating your unerring righteousness and your opponents not. Whilst professing 100% adherence to Catholic Teachings, you have undermined those Catholics who are avowed anti abortion by unduly stressing other pro life issues such as capital punishment, torture and euthanasia.

In England, capital punishment is not an issue. Torture is rarely mentioned because probably no politician would admit to its justification and most likely be offended if asked for their views on it. Euthanasia is widely discussed and the increasing pressure to legislate for it is battled in the main by the Christian Churches, the pro life movement and a fair proportion of the medical field who recognize the dangers.

The term “Pro Choice” is widely understood to refer only to abortion and much argument would have been saved if the original quote had made it clear what the title of the thread actually meant. In my experience, when the other life issues are brought into the discussion about abortion, it is a means of criticism of the militancy shown by anti abortionists.

You accuse others of making unqualified statements but have made a few yourself. You deny that abortion is used as a form of birth control but I contend that it is the ultimate form of birth control - why else would a woman have one? You claim that abortion is a poverty issue and I don’t believe it is. If poverty justified abortions the third world wouldn’t be having childen. More middle class women have abortions because a child interferes with their education and career. The poor working class are much more likely to give birth because they value education much less and often feel that giving birth is actually something they are good at. Young poor women are provided with benefits and housing they couldn’t afford on the low wages paid by menial jobs. Thank God for them because the dearth of babies in our culture would be even more perilous without them.

Excellent points!!! Particularly abortion being the ultimate birth control. Abortion is the fallback in the event of the failure of all other forms of birth control.

 

[SoCalRC]

What in the world did you just say?

Direct Abortion is always a grave moral disorder. Pope John Paul II used the infallibility of the Church, not Ex Cathedra proclamation.

No one disputes this. However, voting on the legal status of abortion is not the same sin as providing or procuring a direct abortion. It is a level of complicency, but the degree is debatable.

Pope Benedict, as John Paul II before him, has stated that the complicency is grave. And, as dutiful Catholics, we are compelled to treat that proper reverence and deferrence. However, neither Pope has spoken on the matter ex-Cathedra, and there is significant disagreement among the Bishops as to rather voting for an abortion law rises to the bar of CIC 915. Since there is disagreement, the teaching cannot be held to be infallible via universal agreement of the Magisterium. So, while a strong teaching (the Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council explains that we can know the Pontiff’s intensity of emphasis and frequency, etc.) it is prudential.

Prudential does not mean ‘optional’, but plenty of Catholics here - proudly proclaiming themselves to be pro-life, also compromise on prudential Catholic pro life teachings. For example, many here disagree with the last two Pope’s on Iraq. Many disgree with the Church on the death penalty (Encyclical, multiple decrees, books, speeches, and the local and universal Catechisms seem to make the Pontiff’s intensity of will on that teaching clear). Some here disagree on things like CCC 2313, including the torture/murder of detaineers.

Now, when I have asked these people why they disagree on, say, the death penalty, I most often here arguments either to the effect that the Pope and Bishops are not qualified to make the determination, or that, being prudential, the teaching is not binding. From a Catholic point of view, this seems nonsensical:

“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

However, there is an argument that does seem more reasonable. We are instructed by the Catechism to follow the absolute certainty of our moral conscience…

Cont.

 

[SoCalRC]

(Continued from previous post)

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” - CCC 1790

This is understandable when you review our beliefs about the source and proper formation of the moral conscience:

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” - CCC 1776

Now, let’s imagine a Catholic who agrees that abortion is an absolute, “grave moral disorder” (EVANGELIUM VITAE). However, although the infallible teaching is accepted, let’s say that the Catholic found secular evidence very compelling. Research appears to show very little connection between legal status and actual abortion rates world wide. Similiarly, we see no connection between “pro life” platform party rule of the GOP and the “pro choice” platform of the DEMs who proceeded in actual abortion rates (abortions actually went down faster under Clinton).

The data also shows a strong link to poverty. The vast majority of procurred abortions occur among women living near or below the poverty line. Half of them are already mothers.

If that Catholic hears Christ’s message each week in the Gospel with regards to our obligations to the poor, sees the statistical link, looks at the secular evidence and finds that, his/her conscience is absolutely certain that addressing poverty is the only way to actually stop abortions, even if it means disobedience on the strong prudential teaching of legal status, I would say that I think that Catholic is wrong.

Similiarly, I would say the Catholics here who compromise on stem cell research, war, torture, or the death penalty for the sake of ‘expediently’ doing something about abortion are wrong.

Our belief in the right to life is “every stage” and “every condition” (CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI). Comproming on any stage or any condition undermines the whole teaching.

But, even though I believe they are both wrong, I would not feel right condemning either approach as being inherently not Catholic or not Christian. I cannot look into their hearts and minds, I do not know the certainty of their moral conscience. Nor can I presume to know the mind of God. And, as a Catholic and a Christian, I cannot ignore Jesus’ seeming warnings about making such relative moral judgements regarding myself and others (Pharisee and the Publican, the Prodigal Son, etc.)

I hope that is clearer.
Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

These first two paragraphs suggest you have great sympathy with those who believe that changing secular law on abortion is ineffectual.

I have sympathy because that is what the secular research supports.

You have great sympathy too for the Catholics who prefer safe legal abortions to maternal deaths from unsafe illegal abortions.

If I am supposed to love all as I love myself, how can I not at least try to understand the emotions and fears that drive them?

You cannot bring yourself to argue that your own position is unerringly righteous and his/her not, yet you have no problem throughout this thread demonstrating your unerring righteousness and your opponents not.

I think you did not mean “demonstrating” above, though I do try to demonstrate my positions, not just assert them.

Whilst professing 100% adherence to Catholic Teachings, you have undermined those Catholics who are avowed anti abortion by unduly stressing other pro life issues such as capital punishment, torture and euthanasia.

That is false. I have noted that I strive to fully accept the Church’s direction. I repeatedly have indicated that I am just enough sinner, unworthy as everyone else at Mass.

However, I do not follow your reasoning of my ‘undermining’ people. I’ve quoted the position of the Church, and said that I agree with it. I’ve also encouraged others to fully embrace it, or at least be less judgemental of others who chose alternate compromises.

It would be illogical to argue that the Church undermines its own teaching with its own guidance, at least if one accepts its Holy and apostolic nature.

You deny that abortion is used as a form of birth control but I contend that it is the ultimate form of birth control - why else would a woman have one?

That is exaggerating both the assertion and my response. I questioned only that women use abortion as a regular alternative to conventional contraceptive measures. On this, I can only go by research in regards to health and human services.

You claim that abortion is a poverty issue and I don’t believe it is.

Incorrect, I point out only what we can measure, roughly 70% of the procurred abortions are for women living at or near the poverty line in the US. What this means is purely speculative. Because of Christ’s emphasis on our obligations to the poor (Gospel is from the Greek for ‘Good News’), I suspect that Christ’s earthly message is directly relevant to this problem, but I do not claim that my suspician is fact.

What you believe is utterly beyond my control.

What you seem to still be missing is that I have, with absolute consistancy, held that abortion is always gravely immoral, even for the seemingly noble cause of saving the mother’s life.

If we disagree on abortion, it is on rather or not Catholics can compromise on other intrinsic evil for the noble cause of addressing it. The Church says no, which I have quoted and dissected ad nauseum. If you disagree, fine, you’ll have plenty of company. But your disagreement is then with Rome, not I:

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

See Section 4. And:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

See #38.

 

[BamaRider]

The Holy Father said this in 2007-

Last May, when a reporter pressed Benedict on whether he agreed that Catholic politicians who had recently legalized abortion in Mexico City should be considered excommunicated, his response was, “Yes.”

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later said the pope was not setting a new policy and did not intend to formally excommunicate anyone. But Lombardi added that politicians who vote in favor of abortion should refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

So as not to be taken by the accusation of taken out of context click the link below for full story. The story has a pic of the Speaker of the House kissing the Pope’s ring. I could make some comments on that but better not.

For those of y’all who will split hairs and say He is not speaking ex cathedra, all I can tell ya He didn’t have to convince me.

breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9037ITO1&show_article=1

If the Holy Father feels those Catholic politicians who support Pro Choice needs to refrain from Communion, what ya reckon He’s gonna tell their enablers that suport them at the ballot box?

I encourage all my fellow Catholics, when confronted with a pro choice or pro life candidate to forget your secular agenda and vote pro life. But some have placed their secular beliefs ahead of their Catholic Faith, as evidenced by some politicians in Washington. There can be no other explaination why a Catholic would be pro choice.

:knight2: For those that engage the pro choice movement at every oppurtunity and who work tirelessly in defence of those unborn babies.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Since there is disagreement, the teaching cannot be held to be infallible via universal agreement of the Magisterium. So, while a strong teaching (the Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council explains that we can know the Pontiff’s intensity of emphasis and frequency, etc.) it is prudential.

There does not have to be universal agreement among the bishops,. It is those bishops in union with the pope, whose teaching is infallible.

Now, when I have asked these people why they disagree on, say, the death penalty, I most often here arguments either to the effect that the Pope and Bishops are not qualified to make the determination, or that, being prudential, the teaching is not binding. From a Catholic point of view, this seems nonsensical:

I resolved this issue by asking myself the simple question that if I approved of the death penalty, would I be willing to pull the switch. My answer was not. How then could I ask another to do it if I would not.

However, there is an argument that does seem more reasonable. We are instructed by the Catechism to follow the absolute certainty of our moral conscience…
Cont.

Lets not forget the absolute moral obligation we all have to correctly form our conscience, not to just blindly follow it.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[David_Poem]

Hi everyone. Please look at the quote below and tell me what, if anything, is wrong with it. Thanks!

If you love Jesus then you will obay the laws.Yes we all need willingness to love Jesus.If i follow in his way then i am lovin Jesus.If you have the time to look for words that fit your needs thrn you have time to pray

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have sympathy because that is what the secular research supports.

You are using a secular source to circumvent Church teaching??? What’s wrong with thie picture

If I am supposed to love all as I love myself, how can I not at least try to understand the emotions and fears that drive them?

Now we are making moral judgments on feelings? This reminds me of Jane Fonda sitting on a cannon in North Viet Nam and saying if it feels so good, how can it be wrong.

I do not follow your reasoning of my ‘undermining’ people. I’ve quoted the position of the Church, and said that I agree with it. I’ve also encouraged others to fully embrace it, or at least be less judgemental of others who chose alternate compromises.

There is no compromise on abortion. The end does not justify the means. Thats basic moral theology 101.

I

What you seem to still be missing is that I have, with absolute consistancy, held that abortion is always gravely immoral, even for the seemingly noble cause of saving the mother’s life.

How can you say it is always gravely immoral, and make exceptions to this. Thats a non sequitur. If two options are gravely wrong, we are not allowed to choose either one. Picking the lesser of two evils does not apply to moral absolutes.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Icarus]

Some individuals on this thread; with their self-importance on display, their spellchecked and synonym substituted rants are pretty much the same people that that the apostle Paul spoke to in Greece. Such great intellectuals, talking and talking, with their immense intelligence (not!) on display for the whole city to see. Yet in the end… He “never knew them”

I do like (very much) the basic and to the point answers and opinion given by the less heady posters.

Although the more I peruse this forum, it’s becoming apparent to me, that the former is more prevalent than that the latter. Unfortunate! This along with the original post - directing us to a quote that in whole was purposely ambiguous and meant to ensnare, makes me wonder why I bother wasting my time on forums like this?

But maybe I’m just stupid and shouldn’t be on these high I.Q threads such as this one.

Oops I guess I’ve also digressed.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I encourage all my fellow Catholics, when confronted with a pro choice or pro life candidate to forget your secular agenda and vote pro life. But some have placed their secular beliefs ahead of their Catholic Faith, as evidenced by some politicians in Washington. There can be no other explanation why a Catholic would be pro choice.

:knight2: For those that engage the pro choice movement at every oppurtunity and who work tirelessly in defence of those unborn babies.

:extrahappy:

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[SoCalRC]

You are using a secular source to circumvent Church teaching??? What’s wrong with thie picture

No. I simply understand why they are mislead.

How can you say it is always gravely immoral, and make exceptions to this. Thats a non sequitur. If two options are gravely wrong, we are not allowed to choose either one. Picking the lesser of two evils does not apply to moral absolutes.

I do not know how to explain any clearer. I do NOT make exceptions to this, at all. I follow the Church to the absolute best of my abilities in voting. In the document from Rome, which I have linked to many times in this thread. It lists nine broad examples of moral principles that are absolutely non negotiable in voting. No matter how tempting to compromise, I follow all nine.

The primary disagreement in this thread is that people argue that I am incorrect in following this directive from Rome. They say I should support the torture of detainees, I should support the death penalty, I should support a war I belief to be unjust, all because doing so will make progress on abortion.

My primary disagreement with you is that I will not assert that ANY of the self described Catholics who are failing to wholly follow the Church on right to life are either not Catholic or not Christian.

Personally, I see no difference between compromising on abortion and compromising on stem cell research, or, for that matter, compromising on torture of prisoners - all are attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person (Pastoral Constitution of the Church). Any compromise regarding attacks on the human person potentially undermines the faith (at least so says the Church).

But, how should I view others who disagree? Vern, whom you agreed with, has referred to people who do not vote as he does as “couch potato Catholics”. He also disagrees with the Church regarding the death penalty. Another poster aserted that the only “real” Catholics vote as he does, but asserts that torturing prisoners, even if some die, is wholly understandable and just. Still another has asserted that ‘of course’ the teach understands that we need to sometimes comrpomise on intrinsic evil…

I simply say, look to Rome, wholly follow the Church, if it costs earthly political power to vote with God, so be it. God is the only true source of power anyway. BUT, I will not condemn those who disagree as inherently non Catholic or non Christian, because I cannot reconcile such an action with the Beatitudes.

If you believe it is or earthly role to judge our fellow children of God, so be it. I just believe that it is our shared unworthiness, which we all pronounce before being welcomed at God’s table at Mass, which is the ultimate answer to our weekly prayer for unity and peace.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

For those of y’all who will split hairs and say He is not speaking ex cathedra, all I can tell ya He didn’t have to convince me.

We seem to now be into the surreal portion of the program. I agree with the Holy Father, and we are DOGMATICALLY compelled to treat his pronouncements with reverence even when they are not Ex Cathedra.

I encourage all my fellow Catholics, when confronted with a pro choice or pro life candidate to forget your secular agenda and vote pro life. But some have placed their secular beliefs ahead of their Catholic Faith, as evidenced by some politicians in Washington. There can be no other explaination why a Catholic would be pro choice.

That is my point of view, unchanged, from the beginning of this disucssion. The difference is that I recommend we use Rome’s definition of “pro life”, not a subset that fits a political agenda. Pope Benedict actually reiterated the need for Catholics to wholly reflect their faith in voting and all public life during his visit. Is there a reason that those comments are less compelling to you?

After all, it is you, Vern, and Ender, that have proposed only partially voting pro life because political success is the only viable path to progress. If you have changed your mind, the links from Rome I have provided are worth reading.

 

[BamaRider]

SoCal sez-

After **all, it is you, Vern, and Ender, that have proposed only partially voting pro life **because political success is the only viable path to progress. If you have changed your mind, the links from Rome I have provided are worth reading.

And in keeping with the tone of simple and straight answers, that follks like Icarus favor.

I don’t agree with this. I’ve never in my voting life (since 1976) at national, state, or local level ever voted for a pro choice candidate. Now you explain to me how I only vote partially pro life.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I do not know how to explain any clearer. I do NOT make exceptions to this, at all. I follow the Church to the absolute best of my abilities in voting. In the document from Rome, which I have linked to many times in this thread. It lists nine broad examples of moral principles that are absolutely non negotiable in voting. No matter how tempting to compromise, I follow all nine.

Without rereading what you previously posted, which was at best confusing at times, I will say we are in agreement here.

My primary disagreement with you is that I will not assert that ANY of the self described Catholics who are failing to wholly follow the Church on right to life are either not Catholic or not Christian

I note you use not Catholic or not Christian. This is where we may have a disagreement. Let me explain it this way. To be truly Catholic we must accept all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Not to do so, places one in the category of being what is called a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what the want to believe and rejecting that which they do not like. If you have been at an Easter Vigil service, simply recall the oath which the new converts make in order to become Catholic. In it they accept all that the Church teaches.

Personally, I see no difference between compromising on abortion and compromising on stem cell research, or, for that matter, compromising on torture of prisoners - all are attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person (Pastoral Constitution of the Church). Any compromise regarding attacks on the human person potentially undermines the faith (at least so says the Church).

On this I also agree with you. For torture, yes, torture for torture sake is always inherently wrong. Here there are degrees of what some call coerced interrogation. This is a very fine line. The problem is what may be considered torture to some, is not torture to others. This is the cause of all the disagreements on this.

But, how should I view others who disagree? Vern, whom you agreed with, has referred to people who do not vote as he does as “couch potato Catholics”. He also disagrees with the Church regarding the death penalty.

In a moral theology class I had I was taught on the death penalty hat there are rare exceptions. It is allowed where there is no way of protecting society from the individual. In our society here in the U.S. our prison system does provide for societies protection through incarnation. World wide, extreme dictators (and there are very few) would be the only ones I could think of in this category. Because of progress being made in this world this is becoming more and more rare where it would be the only option.

Still another has asserted that ‘of course’ the teach understands that we need to sometimes comrpomise on intrinsic evil…

Again, there can be no compromise on a moral absolute

I simply say, look to Rome, wholly follow the Church, if it costs earthly political power to vote with God, so be it. God is the only true source of power anyway.

agree

BUT, I will not condemn those who disagree as inherently non Catholic or non Christian, because I cannot reconcile such an action with the Beatitudes.

This may point to the source of some of our disagreements or misunderstandings, as this is either confusing or an incomplete thought at best.

If you believe it is or earthly role to judge our fellow children of God, so be it.

If you have read my posts, you will see that I have said over and over, that judgment is not ours, but God’s alone

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Ender]

You are attempting to use reductive reasoning. The Princes have no power except from the Pope. Rome, and the Vicar of Christ are the ultimate authority. You need to show me how Rome’s document can be reconciled to your interpretation of the Bishops, otherwise it is your interpretation of the Bishops, not my interpretation of Rome, that is, by default, suspect by Catholic Dogma.

Well, this pretty much ends the debate as far as I am concerned.

You cited the “Princes of the Church” yet when I cited a document from the USCCB you dismiss them as having no power except from the Pope. Either what the bishops say matters or it doesn’t but their import doesn’t change depending on whether it is you quoting them or me.

As far as what they said, it is self evident that it completely contradicts your interpretation of the documents you referred to. It is true that they don’t make doctrine but you are inferring that they can’t even understand it. Either you are right or the bishops are right and that’s not a hard choice for me to make. I’m willing to debate issues that are debatable but I’m not interested in arguing the obvious.

Ender

 

[rlg94086]

Well, this pretty much ends the debate as far as I am concerned.

You cited the “Princes of the Church” yet when I cited a document from the USCCB you dismiss them as having no power except from the Pope. Either what the bishops say matters or it doesn’t but their import doesn’t change depending on whether it is you quoting them or me.

As far as what they said, it is self evident that it completely contradicts your interpretation of the documents you referred to. It is true that they don’t make doctrine but you are inferring that they can’t even understand it. Either you are right or the bishops are right and that’s not a hard choice for me to make. I’m willing to debate issues that are debatable but I’m not interested in arguing the obvious.

Ender

I agree with you Ender, and I think the Bible is clear that the Bishops do have “power.” In fact, St. Paul tells us we are to listen to our Bishops. Apparently, SoCalRC disagrees with St. Paul.

When it comes to the interpretation of Church documents, the Pope and the Bishops together make up the Magisterium. The USCCB has exponentially greater authority than SoCalRC. That doesn’t mean we must always agree with every statement they make, but they certainly have more weight than an individual, anonymous poster on a forum.

 

[SoCalRC]

Well, this pretty much ends the debate as far as I am concerned.

You cited the “Princes of the Church” yet when I cited a document from the USCCB you dismiss them as having no power except from the Pope. Either what the bishops say matters or it doesn’t but their import doesn’t change depending on whether it is you quoting them or me.

As far as what they said, it is self evident that it completely contradicts your interpretation of the documents you referred to. It is true that they don’t make doctrine but you are inferring that they can’t even understand it. Either you are right or the bishops are right and that’s not a hard choice for me to make. I’m willing to debate issues that are debatable but I’m not interested in arguing the obvious.

I am sorry, but that is quite dishonest. It is not “self evident”, I went through your quotes and showed an alternate interpretation.

The Dogma of the Church (see Deacon B’s explanation) is that the Bishops matter when they are in unison with Rome. So, if your interpretation of Church doctrine is licit, you should be able to reconcile it with a Doctrinal Note from Rome.

I am not saying that the Bishops are wrong, I am saying that you are wrong. How on earth could you be correct, but then not be able to reconcile it to words prepared by our current pope and approved by our last?