Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[SoCalRC]

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.

That is my understanding as well. However, I am following the lead of the Holy See, which has stated that, although not in correct unity with the Mother Church, some of these groups are, in fact, still fellow Christians.

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.

Not quite. Once an autopsy rules the manner of death “homicide”, we go into the area of murder. Murder is declared infallible in Evangelium Vitae as well. Further, the Church has indicated that the accepted standard is the laws of nations (CCC 2313), once we consciously decided to defy those laws and treaty obligations, the moral answer would seem to be answered.

But, for me, international law did not need to be consulted. Once we started beating old men to death in sleeping bags and performing torture crucifixions (I’ve posted the DOD material before), the absolute certainty of my moral conscience was clear.

In a moral theology class I had I was taught on the death penalty hat there are rare exceptions.

No diagreement, it is spelled out in Evangelium Vitae and the Universal Catechism. However, Pope John Paul II spoke directly on our application of the death penalty in the US. Further, it is reflected in the Local Catechism published by the USCCB. The teaching is not absolute, but a teaching in the Catechism, brought up in an Encyclical, and repeatedly emphasised by a Pope, is still an important teaching.

Given the empahsis, my understanding of Lumen Gentium #25, is that such teachings should be obeyed with reverence. However, some Catholics disagree.

My point, which I made before, is that “direct abortion” is infallibly held to be always a grave moral disorder. However, voting for abortion legality is not an infallible teaching. It is, like the death penalty, a strongly emphasised prudential teaching. Also, like the death penalty, the Church recognizes rare exception (See “limiting the harm” in Evangelium Vitae). I, personally, think that the exceptions in both cases are meant to be extremely rare. This also appears to match the Church’s doctrinal note with regards to voting. Others here disagree, arguing that such a strict understanding is impractical for politically addressing abortion.

Again, there can be no compromise on a moral absolute

And, again, that has been my primary point all along.

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

I cannot explain it any clearer. Judge not, lest you be judged, along with multiple parables in Luke are the best I can do.

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

And we agree in principle. We just disagree in application. You appeared to be asserting that one could not vote pro-choice and be Catholic. I cannot agree. Catholics procure abortions, and can still reconcile with the faith. Yes, it is a grave evil, but doing terrible things does not preclude one from becoming an instrument of God. Look at Saul who became St. Paul.

I think that voting pro choice, like voting pro war or pro torture, is a reflection of an incomplete moral conscience. But I do not know if the motives are impure, or what is truly in their hearts and minds. So, I keep encouraging folks to follow Rome (a suprisingly unpopular point of view on a Catholic forum), and I keep taking them at their word that they are fellow Catholics. Instead of pronouncing that their acts make them not Catholic, I pray for all of us.

 

[janechantal]

I am going to go a little off base and ask for some info on our candidates who are in the running today…
Senator Clinton is for abortion??? yes or no
Senator Obama is for abortion??? yes or no
John McClain is for abortion ??? yes or no

thanks for reply…

 

[BamaRider]

M’am I’ll send you a response to your question in PM. CAF prefers we not mention names.

Glad to help.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

That is my understanding as well. However, I am following the lead of the Holy See, which has stated that, although not in correct unity with the Mother Church, some of these groups are, in fact, still fellow Christians.

You seem to be using Catholic and Christian almost interchangeably. While Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholic.

Not quite. Once an autopsy rules the manner of death “homicide”, we go into the area of murder. Murder is declared infallible in Evangelium Vitae as well. Further, the Church has indicated that the accepted standard is the laws of nations (CCC 2313), once we consciously decided to defy those laws and treaty obligations, the moral answer would seem to be answered.

All of a sudden homicide in interjected. I was talking about coerced interrogation. The two are not synonymous
.

But, for me, international law did not need to be consulted. Once we started beating old men to death in sleeping bags and performing torture crucifixions (I’ve posted the DOD material before), the absolute certainty of my moral conscience was clear.

What you are talking about here is not coerced interrogation, but homicide. Stop using them interchangeably They are not the same.

My point, which I made before, is that “direct abortion” is infallibly held to be always a grave moral disorder. However, voting for abortion legality is not an infallible teaching. It is, like the death penalty, a strongly emphasised prudential teaching. Also, like the death penalty, the Church recognizes rare exception (See “limiting the harm” in Evangelium Vitae). I, personally, think that the exceptions in both cases are meant to be extremely rare. This also appears to match the Church’s doctrinal note with regards to voting. Others here disagree, arguing that such a strict understanding is impractical for politically addressing abortion.

If one procures an abortion with the thought, all I have to do is go to confession, I would ask is the person sincerely sorry for this sin. If there is true repentance reconciliation with the Church is accomplished with sacramental absolution and they are indeed truly Catholic. If this is used simply as a means of getting around it, I would ask where is the contrition and further, is the sacramental absolution efficacious due to the disposition of the person seeking that reconciliation. Outwardly some may think so, but our omnipotent, omniscient God can read the hearts of repentants and know if they are sincere.

I cannot explain it any clearer. Judge not, lest you be judged, along with multiple parables in Luke are the best I can do.

I accept this

And we agree in principle. We just disagree in application. You appeared to be asserting that one could not vote pro-choice and be Catholic. I cannot agree.

Please show me where I ever said this. I do not, have not and will not judge whether a person is Catholic. To use your statement, how many times have I said, and I have said, judgment is not mine. I simply pray for them and to the best of my ability say what the Church teaches.

Catholics procure abortions, and can still reconcile with the faith. Yes, it is a grave evil, but doing terrible things does not preclude one from becoming an instrument of God. Look at Saul who became St. Paul.

This has been addressed above.

I think that voting pro choice, like voting pro war or pro torture, is a reflection of an incomplete moral conscience. But I do not know if the motives are impure, or what is truly in their hearts and minds. So, I keep encouraging folks to follow Rome (a suprisingly unpopular point of view on a Catholic forum), and I keep taking them at their word that they are fellow Catholics. Instead of pronouncing that their acts make them not Catholic, I pray for all of us.

I see many judgments being made in this section. Since this has been discussed ad nausiam, I will not go there any more.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[catholicbuckeye]

I am going to go a little off base and ask for some info on our candidates who are in the running today…
Senator Clinton is for abortion??? yes or no
Senator Obama is for abortion??? yes or no
John McClain is for abortion ??? yes or no

thanks for reply…

My understanding (and very anecdotal evidence here so take it however you like - also looked up NARAL ratings of each - NARAL being the far-left pro-abortion group) is:

Senator Clinton: Pro-Choice. I have heard quotes from her on how she would like to see fewer abortions or something to that effect. A pretty weak statement against abortion. NARAL rating of 100% for years 2002-2007.

Senator Obama: Extremely Pro-Choice. You’ll have to look it up but there was a vote while he was Illinois leg. regarding protecting babies after they were born (apparently a few had been born then left to die of exposure so the legislature was going to draft a law protecting an unwanted baby’s life after birth) - Obama was the only one to vote against this. Every other Pro-Choice legislator couldn’t bring themselves to vote against a law protecting babies. Could Obama? Yes, he could!!! And he did. 100% NARAL rating 2005-2007.

Senator McCain: Pro-Life. His website says as much. NARAL rating of 0% for each year 2002-2007.

I haven’t looked at other NARAL ratings. They seem to be pretty extreme (100% or 0%. What, no 42.354%?) but then again, so is NARAL.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Look at the stated positions of the GOP national representatives and candidates in your state. Several publicly state that the accept abortions in specific cases. One mentions “incest”. Another,when pressed, gave the case of “a black man raping a white girl” as an example in an interview.

These are compromises on the absolute nature of our ban on abortion. You are only ‘uncomromsing’ if we lower the bar and redefine ‘pro life’ to mean something other than the Catholic Church’s definition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Look at the stated positions of the GOP national representatives and candidates in your state. Several publicly state that the accept abortions in specific cases. One mentions “incest”. Another,when pressed, gave the case of “a black man raping a white girl” as an example in an interview.

These are compromises on the absolute nature of our ban on abortion. You are only ‘uncomromsing’ if we lower the bar and redefine ‘pro life’ to mean something other than the Catholic Church’s definition.

You seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong – I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that there are no perfect candidates.

So where does our duty lie – to vote for the candidate who is most pro-life, or for the one who is** least**?

 

[BamaRider]

Look at the stated positions of the GOP national representatives and candidates in your state. Several publicly state that the accept abortions in specific cases. One mentions “incest”. Another,when pressed, gave the case of “a black man raping a white girl” as an example in an interview.

These are compromises on the absolute nature of our ban on abortion. You are only ‘uncomromsing’ if we lower the bar and redefine ‘pro life’ to mean something other than the Catholic Church’s definition.

Do what? If you think votiing a pro life candidate who might allow it in rape and incest is the same as voting for a rabid, pro choice, anything goes, abortion on demand guy as the same, then I dunno what to tell ya, other then regular folks think that’s a messed line of thinking.

An Alabama lawmaker made that claim about race being a factor when he would allow a abortion? Who might that be? Or is that something you manufactured? I never heard that, he’d be run out on a rail, unless you’re quoting something from the 50s and the guy that said it has long been dead. C’mon man. But if you can prove it, I’ll concede it is wrong, and I wouldnt’t like it. But I’ll say this, I’d vote for him before I’d vote some pro choice guy who is gonna vote a law allowing the taking of black, white, yellow, and whoever else happens to step in the clinic, money in hand. Which are YOU gonna vote for? It might not be the best choice but it is what it is.

All I’m telling you is I’ve never voted anything but pro life candidate in my entire voting career, going back to when I was 18. As Vern said, they may not have all been perfect, but way better then the alternative. I’m thinking it is NOT the pro life caveats of these less then perfect candidates that upset ya, but their views on war, poverty, healtcare etc.

I’m gettin kinda like the Deacon, don’t interject murder, self defense, just war, death penalty into this debate because not what were talking about. How we interpert those issues can be debated, and I’d be glad to do so on another thread. But ain’t but ONE way to define abortion/pro choice and we all know what that is- taking a baby’s life.

Now the title of this thread can a Catholic vote pro choice, and the overwhelming answer is NO. I posted the thinking of the Holy Father earlier, and he favors removing such Catholic politicians from the Communion lines, and I’ll be doggone if I’m gonna let one those misguided Catholics take me out with him. I’m NOT gonna vote a avowed pro choice candidate and enable him to undue the Holy work of so many devoted Catholics down in the trenches, who are engaged in this battle everyday. It has cost some of them their political office because Catholics either voted the other way or stayed home (Rick Santorium comes to mind).

I can deal with seculars and the way they vote but I get upset when Catholics set aside their Faith to pursue their secular agenda.

If you have a problem with conservatism ok, and if you have no liberal pro life candidate, that favors you’re secular views, then what y’all need to do is the samething we did to Rudy-send him packing. I liked his views on most everything else, but no way was I gonna vote for him. because of his pro choice stance-gimme a break.

Now you know we love ya brother, but dang coming on here trying to confuse the average Catholic into thinking even if he’s voting pro life guys, he might not be following Catholic teaching in other areas, so take a look at the other options, Talk about spin.

Catholics wanna dimiss a staunch pro life guy because he wants to cut the rate of growth of a social program from 6% to 3%? And the sad thing is it happens all the time, and result is what you see.

Now Jane comes on here and asked this-

am going to go a little off base and ask for some info on our candidates who are in the running today…

She went on to ask who was pro life and which was pro choice. Now she probably doesn’t follow poltics as closely as some of us, but you can write this down, she knows what a abortion is, and asks us for help in making a decesion. I sent a PM with the stance of each candidate, nothing more nothing less. She doesn’t need a bunch of mumbo jumbo to make the call, she has all she needs.

Get me outta here Vern!

 

[SoCalRC]

You seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong – I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that there are no perfect candidates.

So where does our duty lie – to vote for the candidate who is most pro-life, or for the one who is** least**?

See Deacon B’s response. We must never compromise on intrinsic evil. The USCCB seems to suggest that if all candidates support such platforms a Catholic might consider not participating.

Fortunately, at least in the US, it generally does not have to come to that. I try to apply all of the nine ‘non negotiables’ suggested by Rome, even things like ‘protecting the Family from attack in the environment of environment of modern laws on divorce…’, which puts a serious hit on compliant candidates, does not leave one without options. The key distinction is that the Church does not suggest that candidates be viable, only morally acceptable.

Viability, which you have stated you consider important, can put Catholics in a bind. We live in what John Paul II described as a culture of death. ‘Viable parties’ must, by definition, pander to a majority of the population. So it seems logical that they both embrace some ‘culture of death’ concepts.

 

[Ender]

Now the title of this thread can a Catholic vote pro choice, and the overwhelming answer is NO.

Regrettably it’s not that clear. Several paragraphs from the bishops’ Faithful Citizenship document address this point.

“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voters intent is to support that position.” (#34)

*"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position *{e.g. abortion} may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons." (#35)

"When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter … after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods. (#36)

The first paragraph says you may not vote for such a candidate **if **your intention is to **support **that position. If such is not your intention then there is no outright prohibition against voting for someone who supports abortion. The second paragraph is even more explicit: you may support a pro-choice candidate if there is a sufficiently grave moral reason for doing so. The definition of “sufficiently grave moral reason” is left up to the individual. The third paragraph covers the situation that would have existed if Guiliani had gotten the Republican nomination.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

You seem to be using Catholic and Christian almost interchangeably. While Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholic.

I am sorry, I do not understand this line of criticism. I used the terms together (‘Catholics and Christians’) to indicate that I was referencing two related, but not identical groups. You raised concerns that I did not understand the primacy of the Church. I responded that I was only referring to the two groups using the same definitions used by the Pope.

All of a sudden homicide in interjected. I was talking about coerced interrogation. The two are not synonymous

What you are talking about here is not coerced interrogation, but homicide. Stop using them interchangeably They are not the same.

No, I have not suddenly changed the subject. I have always been referring to the torture that we have evidence for as a result of our current US policy.

I understand that it might be desirable to seperate the two, but that would seem to be morally questionable to me. If we torture prisoners using techniques from the Spanish Inquisition, some will die. Why pretend otherwise?

Certainly, the government knew this when it approved the policy. Ashcroft, then AG, even raised the spectre of war crimes. The White House and Congress went on to pass retroactive immunity from US war crime related laws.

The ‘bad apples’ explanation does not hold water when one looks at the response to 100+ deaths we now know about. The autopsies are gut wrenching.

Torture and murder are two different sins, but they are not wholly unrelated in Catholic teaching. See the Pastoral Constitution from the Second Vatican Council (quoted by John Paul II in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38). Physical torture, murder, and abortion are all identified as attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person, which the Church has “always” resisted and which we hold, dogmatically, to be unabridgable by any entity, including a government.

If one procures an abortion with the thought…

I am sorry, I read this portion several times but did not follow you. My point was that we are all sinners, from birth. We profess this together at Mass. Sin, even horrible sin, does not necessarily preclude one from being Catholic or Christian. God’s love and mercy is infinite.

I agree that your explanation of the constraints of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation apply.

Please show me where I ever said this. I do not, have not and will not judge whether a person is Catholic.

We need to back up. Vern indicated that it is not possible to be “pro choice” and not be “pro abortion”.

You concurred.

But, in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II gives an example of voting ‘pro choice’ (the context I took from Vern’s string of posts) being licit (under the concept of “limiting the harm”).

Since the Church have given one possibility of the action not being morally injust, I am not comfortable speaking of it as an absolute. Catholics voting ‘pro choice’ and those voting in compromise of other beliefs may all be trying to apply the concept of “limiting the harm”. From the Vatican’s Doctrinal Note on voting, my understanding is that the concept, like the death penalty, is a very narrow, rare case. Further, it cannot be used to justify compromise on fundemental morals. This would make both voting ‘pro choice’ and voting ‘pro life’ with other fundemental moral compromises seem incorrect.

However, since it is not an absolute, I cannot concur with you and Vern. Because, if I did so I would be judging. That does not mean that you are judging. As I said, we agree in principle, but see a certain situation from different perspectives.

Please note, in this exchange you have presumed that I am ‘pro choice’. I am not. You presumed I have endorsed compromise on Church teachings. I have steadfastly asserted the opposite. And you have raised the concern that I do not accept the Primacy of the Church. I not only accept it, I have quoted the Dogmatic Constitution in support of it in this thread.

But, I do not assume you are judging me, wrongly or unfairly. I presume that it is simply the limits of the form of communication here. I strive to express myself better and see no reason, with the vast number of beliefs that we both already hold in common, that our actual differences can be identified and discussed in the fashion identifed as suitable by the Church (that is, with us both starting with the proper perspective on the nature of the Church and its teachings).

Peace

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Please note, in this exchange you have presumed that I am ‘pro choice’. I am not. You presumed I have endorsed compromise on Church teachings. I have steadfastly asserted the opposite. And you have raised the concern that I do not accept the Primacy of the Church. I not only accept it, I have quoted the Dogmatic Constitution in support of it in this thread.

But, I do not assume you are judging me, wrongly or unfairly. I presume that it is simply the limits of the form of communication here. I strive to express myself better and see no reason, with the vast number of beliefs that we both already hold in common, that our actual differences can be identified and discussed in the fashion identifed as suitable by the Church (that is, with us both starting with the proper perspective on the nature of the Church and its teachings).Peace

I have presumed (assumed) no such thing. What I see are arguments where isssues are constantly being interjected which change the nuance of what is being discussed . This is an old debate tactic. We are not debating here. I also see you positing everything in an entirely black and white relationship. We do not live in such a world, but one where all shades of gray are interspersed with absolutes. This is what I have been trying to point out. You don’t seem to be able to recognize that. If that is the case, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[SoCalRC]

I have presumed (assumed) no such thing. What I see are arguments where isssues are constantly being interjected which change the nuance of what is being discussed . This is an old debate tactic. We are not debating here. I also see you positing everything in an entirely black and white relationship. We do not live in such a world, but one where all shades of gray are interspersed with absolutes. This is what I have been trying to point out. You don’t seem to be able to recognize that. If that is the case, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Are you now saying that intrinsic evil is a shade of gray? If so, yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not expect people to act black and whtie, but that does not mean God’s law itself is a sliding scale. Abortion is always “a grave moral disorder”. That is, I believe, infallibly moral truth.

Acceptance of that varies, some Catholics vote for legality of abortion. Others, like Vern, argue that some abortions, like ectopic pregancy, are not abortions. Still others are ‘mostly’ against abortion, but see exceptions for rape and incest.

This leaves us two choices. We can argue that God’s law is a sliding scale, or we can concede that we are all sinners who, to some degree or another, fail to fully realize the standard set by God. If, as I believe, it is the latter, then I see little point in one group of sinners proclaiming that there are more rightous than another because they simply make different compromises on the same teaching. Instead, we should all try tobe more aware of our own unworthiness and strive to improve.

However, if you mean something else by shades of gray, I would welcome an explanation. Our dialog started with my questioning a blanket, black and white statement about the implication of political “pro-choice”. I argued that I see shades of grey, although I, myself, strive to fully obey the Church. I do not see how a moral argument would only apply in certain cases. That would seem to be similiar to the ‘Cafateria Catholicism’ you described above.

Peace

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Are you now saying that intrinsic evil is a shade of gray? If so, yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not expect people to act black and whtie, but that does not mean God’s law itself is a sliding scale. Abortion is always “a grave moral disorder”. That is, I believe, infallibly moral truth.

Acceptance of that varies, some Catholics vote for legality of abortion. Others, like Vern, argue that some abortions, like ectopic pregancy, are not abortions. Still others are ‘mostly’ against abortion, but see exceptions for rape and incest.

This leaves us two choices. We can argue that God’s law is a sliding scale, or we can concede that we are all sinners who, to some degree or another, fail to fully realize the standard set by God. If, as I believe, it is the latter, then I see little point in one group of sinners proclaiming that there are more rightous than another because they simply make different compromises on the same teaching. Instead, we should all try tobe more aware of our own unworthiness and strive to improve.

However, if you mean something else by shades of gray, I would welcome an explanation. Our dialog started with my questioning a blanket, black and white statement about the implication of political “pro-choice”. I argued that I see shades of grey, although I, myself, strive to fully obey the Church. I do not see how a moral argument would only apply in certain cases. That would seem to be similiar to the ‘Cafateria Catholicism’ you described above.

Peace

Your response is a perfect example of what I have been talking about. Please show me or reference my post where I said abortion is ever not an absolute evil. Rape and incest are not exceptions. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, where the fallopian tube is ruptured and hemorrhaging is taking place, both mother and child would die without any medical intervention. The purpose of any medical intervention is not abortion, but the saving of a life. This involves medical ethics questions with which you apparently are not familiar. No one is proclaiming anyone is more righteous.That is what I mean about things being interjected which shift the discussion. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[SoCalRC]

Your response is a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

I try to take CCC 2478 to heart. But I must admit that I am struggling to find an interpretation of your responses other than an intense desire to denounce me personally.

I gave multiple examples of genuine disagreement among Catholics, you are now acting as if I am assigning all those beliefs to you, or embracing them personally.

Rape and incest are not exceptions.

I did not say that they are. I just noted that people who believe that they are, themselves, condemn other Catholics on ‘pro life’ issues.

My point has always been that we should strive to vote the Church’s definition of ‘pro life’. Failing that, we should take care in condemning others as being less ‘pro life’ than ourselves. You seem to applaud this when it comes from others.

In the case of ectopic pregnancies, where the fallopian tube is ruptured and hemorrhaging is taking place… This involves medical ethics questions with which you apparently are not familiar.

I believe there are multiple problems with this. First, the Church has never declared that particular application of ‘Double Effect’ licit, though it has been specifically asked. The clearest guidance we have from the Church would be the answers from the Tribunal of the Holy Office starting in the 1880s. The question of ending ectopic gestations was specifically addressed in 1902. The distinction between salpingectomy and salpingostomy has always been hotly debated among theologians. Even the theologian who proposed it noted that it was an extremely “thin” distinction.

Second, that is not the situation that Vern has endorsed. He has argued in favor not of, say, Nicaragua’s handling of ectopic pregancy (tubal rupture must have occured, and non intrussive interventions for shock and intercine bleeding must have failed). He has argued in support of ‘preventive’ termination, which is largely used in the US. That is, early termination prior to any measurable trauma or threat to the mother.

Last, it is an extraordinary stretch from my giving an example of disagreement to the assertion that I am ignorant of Catholic Bioethics. I served as a combat medic in Vietnam because of my faith and received the Church’s instruction to caregivers at that time. Most of my subsequent income has been derived from patents in the medical field. In addition to studying Catholic bioethics because of my faith and profession, I have actually solicited (name removed by moderator)ut from the relevant USCCB committees on specific bioethics questions, lest I be involved with any treatment that the Church finds illicit.

I have also made a specific study of ectopic pregnancies because of my own daughter’s decision to ‘wait and see’, rather than accept a preventive abortion of the type defended by Vern.

My opinions can be wrong, but I am quite familiar with May, Cahill, and any of the other texts that you would have been likely to have studied in your Catholic ethics education. I am also familiar with all the related Church documents.

No one is proclaiming anyone is more righteous.That is what I mean about things being interjected which shift the discussion. .

Again, I disagree. If one proclaims oneself to belong to the only group of “true Catholics”, as some posters have done here - I believe that it is not unfair to perceive that as a proclamation of moral superioriority. Similarly, I do not know of a charitable interpretation of, as some here have done, declaring others to be “couch potatoe Catholics”.

My point has been simple, the Church is the guide that matters and that relative moral comparisons are risky. To be honest, I am not clear on rather you disagree with me on these or not.

As far as distractions, I am willing to have as honest a discussion with you on any aspect your desire. For example, the original exchange seemed simple.

Vern declared that the only interpretation of political “pro choice” activity was “pro abortion”. You agreed.

I disagree. My argument: the Church has already given a specific example of where voting pro-choice is not morally illicit (see Evangelium Vitae). Since the Church has noted it is not an absolute, I am not comfortable taking an absolute stance. If you would like to discuss our seeming disagreement on that point, fine.

Similarly, in explaining my belief about the dangers of arguing that some compromises on fundemental morals is justified, I brought up the issue of torture. You have dismissed this. If you would like to have an honest discussion on that subject, again, I would happy to oblidge. I would start by asking you to explain why the first paragraph of this article from today’s paper (which is just one of many revelations and reports sworn testimony), is potentially not in conflict with CCC 2313:

nytimes.com/2008/04/27/washington/27intel.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Last, but not least, if you would like to have an honest disucssion about the complex moral issue of ectopic pregnancies in light of the Church’s clear position that abortion to save the life of a mother is not licit, I would be glad to do so.

I, personally, think that the Church decrees from 1884, 1889, and 1902 are clear, but I am glad to hear your point of view.

As I said before, if we are both are attempting to honor CCC 2477-2479, I believe that honest and worthwhile discourse can occur. But if the presumption on every exchange is that I am ignorant and intellectually dishonest, I am not sure how to even begin to proceed.

Peace

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your response is a perfect example of what I have been talking about. Please show me or reference my post where I said abortion is ever not an absolute evil. Rape and incest are not exceptions. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, where the fallopian tube is ruptured and hemorrhaging is taking place, both mother and child would die without any medical intervention. The purpose of any medical intervention is not abortion, but the saving of a life. This involves medical ethics questions with which you apparently are not familiar. No one is proclaiming anyone is more righteous.That is what I mean about things being interjected which shift the discussion. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

You’re going to get a lot of this – pretty soon you’re be accused of “thinking like a Protestant.”

 

[BamaRider]

The Holy Father in May 2007 said this-

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. **

The original question still stands, albeit in a haze of rhetoric.

The topic has been hijacked all over the place from Bush is a dictator, to America runs death camps, kicks old people out on the street, denies poor healthcare etc. And none of that has anything to do the OP question.

You’ll also find long winded depositions that are just downright painful to follow to the end. So I’ll keep it simple, just like the Holy Father.

If you wanna know if a Catholic can vote for a Pro Choice candidate, just read what he says above and come to your own conclusion.

 

[paladinan]

Sorry to jump into the middle of this, here… but some of the contributors to this thread have brought up an issue that’s something of a “hot button” for me…

When this-or-that person says, “I’m a faithful Catholic, but I’m pro-life in a more comprehensive way than simply anti-abortion (usually followed by a litany of items seemingly endorsed by the left-side of the political spectrum: the Iraq war, health care, social security, racism, etc.),” I break out the alka-seltzer, count to ten, and pray, “Father, forgive them–they know not what they do.” This is not at all to criticize the sincerity of such people… but I will be so bold as to question their judgment.

Let me make my own position quite clear: I abhor racism, political disenfranchisement, involuntary and oppressive poverty, the deaths of innocents in war, etc., etc., as much as anyone on this board–be he/she “liberal” or “conservative”. But my mind absolutely boggles when these things–all of them admittedly heinous and objectively evil–are given parity with abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research [ESCR] (which is almost always abortion, with illicit experimentation on the corpse thrown in as a “bonus”), and the like.

Two points, on that phenomenon:

1. I’ve heard many arguments on this thread (and others) which defend a less-than-absolute condemnation of [for example] abortion, on the grounds that “other issues are of greater importance”; such people then go on (with almost clockwork precision) to list the Iraq War, the torture of prisoners, and other talking points of the political left. If they had been content only to decry such evils (and to condemn abortion with even greater vehemence), I would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them; but since they go further, and say that these “other evils” (either alone, or collectively) somehow “outweigh” the evil of abortion (usually in the context of “justifying” a vote for an abortion-tolerant [or abortion-promoting] political candidate who decries [and promises to resist and/or eliminate] that second list of evils), I have to say instead: “My friend, you are talking nonsense.”
2. For those who are suggesting that abortion is not to be considered a “non-negotiable” by which a candidate is disqualified from consideration, I can only wonder what could possibly convince them otherwise, given (what I take to be) the crystal-clear teaching of the Church on this matter. The deliberate targeting of an undeniably innocent and helpless unborn child for death cannot, in any way I can see, be defended in any coherent moral way, nor can it be coherently equivocated with “improved health care” and the like.

As an addendum: for those who hold that “rape and incest” are somehow justifiable “exceptions” to the absolute condemnation of abortion, perhaps (if the teaching of the Church doesn’t seem clear enough), they could read the testimony of Rebecca Kiessling, a woman who was conceived in rape (and who was almost aborted)? It was an eye-opener for me, at any rate…

In Christ,
Brian

 

[vern_humphrey]

First of all, much of what we see here is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Some things, like war, the death penalty, and so on are matters in which Catholics can legitimately differ. Other things, like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and so on are things that are intrinsically evil, and no argument will change that.

Which is why I keep asking the same question over and over, “Given two candidates, one of whom is pro-life, albeit imperfectly, and the other is pro-choice, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?”

 

[BamaRider]

The Paladin came in made these excellent points-

Sorry to jump into the middle of this, here… but some of the contributors to this thread have brought up an issue that’s something of a “hot button” for me…

When this-or-that person says, “I’m a faithful Catholic, but I’m pro-life in a more comprehensive way than simply anti-abortion (usually followed by a litany of items seemingly endorsed by the left-side of the political spectrum: the Iraq war, health care, social security, racism, etc.),” I break out the alka-seltzer, count to ten, and pray, “Father, forgive them–they know not what they do.” This is not at all to criticize the sincerity of such people… but I will be so bold as to question their judgment.

Let me make my own position quite clear: I abhor racism, political disenfranchisement, involuntary and oppressive poverty, the deaths of innocents in war, etc., etc., as much as anyone on this board–be he/she “liberal” or “conservative”. But my mind absolutely boggles when these things–all of them admittedly heinous and objectively evil–are given parity with abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research [ESCR] (which is almost always abortion, with illicit experimentation on the corpse thrown in as a “bonus”), and the like.

Two points, on that phenomenon:

1. I’ve heard many arguments on this thread (and others) which defend a less-than-absolute condemnation of [for example] abortion, on the grounds that “other issues are of greater importance”; such people then go on (with almost clockwork precision) to list the Iraq War, the torture of prisoners, and other talking points of the political left. If they had been content only to decry such evils (and to condemn abortion with even greater vehemence), I would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them; but since they go further, and say that these “other evils” (either alone, or collectively) somehow “outweigh” the evil of abortion (usually in the context of “justifying” a vote for an abortion-tolerant [or abortion-promoting] political candidate who decries [and promises to resist and/or eliminate] that second list of evils), I have to say instead: “My friend, you are talking nonsense.”
2. For those who are suggesting that abortion is not to be considered a “non-negotiable” by which a candidate is disqualified from consideration, I can only wonder what could possibly convince them otherwise, given (what I take to be) the crystal-clear teaching of the Church on this matter. The deliberate targeting of an undeniably innocent and helpless unborn child for death cannot, in any way I can see, be defended in any coherent moral way, nor can it be coherently equivocated with “improved health care” and the like.

As an addendum: for those who hold that “rape and incest” are somehow justifiable “exceptions” to the absolute condemnation of abortion, perhaps (if the teaching of the Church doesn’t seem clear enough), they could read the testimony of Rebecca Kiessling, a woman who was conceived in rape (and who was almost aborted)? It was an eye-opener for me, at any rate…

In Christ,
Brian

Kinda like that old TV Western I use to watch (y’all prolly too young to remember it) “Have Gun, Will Travel.” So Brian says, “Have laptop, will Travel.” Meaning he’s subject to go out and strike down the arguments pro choice Catholics like to make.