Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[rlg94086]

(knocking forehead with hand) Oh, yeah! Wow… my cylinders aren’t all firing in harmony today…

(Actually, my own name–which would have been “Paladin”, but for the fact that someone else beat me to the name –came from the deep, dark, embarrassing days when I was a “dungeon master” while playing “Dungeons & Dragons”…)

In Christ,
Brian

Embarassing? What do you mean?

In Christ,

Robert (aka (in my teens) Chauncy P Sunnyslope III esq - hobbit thief in D&D, Tunnels & Trolls and Melee…boy that will really age me, if anyone even recognizes the latter two games. )

Note: According to my teens - I would be part of what they (affectionately, I’m sure ) now call the “nerd hurd.”

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

I still maintain that poverty is irrelevant in the abortion debate unless one believes that it justifies it. On that criteria third world nations would be aborting most of their babies.

In spite of SoCal’s black and white, ultra conservative, faithful adherence to the Church’s teachings, he has demolished, knocked down, swiped every attempt or suggested attempt to repeal the liberal law as irrational; won’t have any effect on the numbers. He has not suggested any positive steps to diminish the number of lives taken with the connivance of the state. He disagrees with all those who believe in trying to change the law by “single issue” voting against the greatest evil in the history of the world - another slaughter of the innocents on a massive scale.

I confess to finding much of the debate on this thread, relating to the guidance (not the Catechism teaching) of the Church, incomprehensible. There appears to be disunity amongst the Bishops on guidance of how to deal with the abortion issue. In 2001, the Bishops Conference of England and Wales issued a document, “The Common Good” which discouraged “single issue” voting which some in the pro life movement took as a veiled attack on them. It was later rumoured that the Vatican was not best pleased with the document but the issue died down and since then the Bishops have been more supportive of the various pro life groups and publicly speak out on the issue.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m not sure whose figures you’re using, here. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform estimated that only 48.2% of women who “procured abortions” had family incomes below $29,999…

I looked at Guttmacher Institute’s '05 report as well as the CDC’s ASP numbers. I cannot really comment on CBR’s numbers, since the original source material and methodologies do not seem to be readily available.

CBR is on the ‘Quack Watch’ list, but that does have a secular bias. I also find it on the Better Business Bureau’s caution list, presumably meaning that it does not comply with all the Beureau’s standards for Charity Accountability.

None of this means the data or org are ‘bad’, just that I cannot confirm or verify it. Guttmacher may, in fact, be biased, though it provides all original source data sources and methodologies. I cannot think of a reason for the CDC to be biased.

Interestingly, the CDC numbers show an even stronger poverty bias than Guttmacher, presumably for the same reasons it under reports. But it does make me question the assumption that the Guttmacher is artifically inflating poverty.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

He has not suggested any positive steps to diminish the number of lives taken with the connivance of the state.

I suggest following the Church, as completely as possible. That is, reject the culture of death outright and in its entirety. But, look at my handle, I am Roman Catholic so I think that following God is the answer, and the Church is the proper guide to God’s path.

I have not said that everyone should agree, just that those who disagree in different ways should have some Christian charity to each other.

. He disagrees with all those who believe in trying to change the law by “single issue” voting against the greatest evil in the history of the world - another slaughter of the innocents on a massive scale.

Not quite correct. I disagree with trying to change the law by compromising on fundemental moral values. The reason we have abortions is not the law, but the attitudes and actions of society. You can’t make people value fetal life more highly if you compromise on life in forms they more readily recognize.

Again, I recommend following the Church as wholly as possible. As a Roman Catholic, I think that Rome is the best interpretter of Catholic Doctrine. So, the document I most often point to is a Doctrinal Note, from Rome (approved by our last Pope, prepared by our current one as Prefect), addressed to the lay faithful, and on the specific subject of voting.

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

I have walked through #4, literally a few sentences at a time, and presented my understanding. I have invited others here to do the same, and show how the section can be construed to match their beliefs.

So far, the only response has been to take snippets from a USCCB document and argue that those, somehow, disprove my interpretation. I have gone through those alternate quotes, explained how I do not believe that they are in conflict with my interpretation, and noted that the USCCB also distributes the Vatican document to the US faithful.

However, even if my interpretation of the USCCB document is wrong, there is still the Vatican’s document. The ultimate authority on applying Roman Catholicism is the Pope. All authority of the Bishops comes from him. It is only teaching in unison with the Pope that the bishops reflect the infallibility of the Church. So, if any interpretation of Church Doctrine is licit, it should be able to be reconciled with a Doctrinal Note from Rome!

So far, I have not seen this attempted. Mine appears to be the only interpretation that has been presented.

I have no problem with you, or anyone else, deciding that you must compromise on principles the Church has deemed ‘non negotiable’ because of your conscience regarding one particular teaching. My problem is when the situation arises that “follow the Church as dutifully and completely as you can” and “trust in God, not politicians” are derided as positions that are “part of the problem” or “typical pro abortion doublespeak”.

It is one thing to hear such disregard for Rome and the US Princes of the Church from Protestants - they reject the primacy of the Church, or Evangelicals - they reject our legitimacy as Christians, but from Catholics?

 

[RodneyJ]

This is probably the most succinct answer on this entire thread.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

And yet, we manage to add another 20 replies to this thread.

 

[rlg94086]

And yet, we manage to add another 20 replies to this thread.

Sure. We are only at a little over 500 posts…they don’t shut them down 'til 1000, and there is always something completely useless or argumentative to add.

It would be like saying “there is no room for dessert.” There is ***always ***room for empty calories.

 

[paladinan]

Okay… I think I have something of a grasp on your position now, SoCalRC–you’ll have to correct me if I’ve strayed from what you really meant. If I understand correctly, you’re speaking of cases where all available politicians violate at least one of the “non-negotiable” moral issues… and you’re trying to express a protocol by which to choose a candidate from that “moral mess”. For example: candidate X is in favor of “gay marriage” (but not in favor of human cloning, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), while candidate Y is in favor of abortion (but not in favor of the others–although I personally find it wildly improbable that a “pro-choice” politician would refuse to support embryonic stem cell research [ESCR]); the question would be, “how would one choose a candidate–if any–from the list of undesirables?”

Is that close to what you meant? I’ll bite my tongue and wait for your reply, before I jump into a reply with both feet…

In Christ,
Brian

 

[BamaRider]

Okay… I think I have something of a grasp on your position now, SoCalRC–you’ll have to correct me if I’ve strayed from what you really meant. If I understand correctly, you’re speaking of cases where all available politicians violate at least one of the “non-negotiable” moral issues… and you’re trying to express a protocol by which to choose a candidate from that “moral mess”. For example: candidate X is in favor of “gay marriage” (but not in favor of human cloning, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), while candidate Y is in favor of abortion (but not in favor of the others–although I personally find it wildly improbable that a “pro-choice” politician would refuse to support embryonic stem cell research [ESCR]); the question would be, “how would one choose a candidate–if any–from the list of undesirables?”

Is that close to what you meant? I’ll bite my tongue and wait for your reply, before I jump into a reply with both feet…

In Christ,
Brian

I predict a really loooooooong post in response to this question from the SoCal and in the end you won’t know anymore than ya do now.

He does not give simple answers, or if he does, they’ll be a bunch of caveats.

The best I can discern he does not vote pro choice candidates, but he doesn’t vote the current crop of pro life candidates either because he thinks they are flawed with a poor a secular agenda, that he feels is in conflict with the church (ample debate on that all in this thread so won’t get into that here.)

Accordingly, I think this means he sits out elections, or votes for some 3rd or 4th party guy that has no chance to be elected anything. But I don’t know that for sure, because he’s never come out and simply said that, you have to study his post, analyze the context, and make a best guess.

Now a fella like me, just says "I vote the most pro life candidate, of the 2 major parties. I for sure DON’T vote for a guy that says he favors unfettered, on demand abortion. End of story.

 

[SoCalRC]

Okay… I think I have something of a grasp on your position now, SoCalRC–you’ll have to correct me if I’ve strayed from what you really meant. If I understand correctly, you’re speaking of cases where all available politicians violate at least one of the “non-negotiable” moral issues… and you’re trying to express a protocol by which to choose a candidate from that “moral mess”. For example: candidate X is in favor of “gay marriage” (but not in favor of human cloning, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), while candidate Y is in favor of abortion (but not in favor of the others–although I personally find it wildly improbable that a “pro-choice” politician would refuse to support embryonic stem cell research [ESCR]); the question would be, “how would one choose a candidate–if any–from the list of undesirables?”

Is that close to what you meant? I’ll bite my tongue and wait for your reply, before I jump into a reply with both feet…

In Christ,
Brian

Yes, that is my basic point. Our right to life teaching is “every stage” and “every condition” (CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI). If we compromise on one “attack on human life” or the “inalienable rights of the human person”, even for laudable reasons, we are undermining the entire teaching.

Many here argue that Catholics must compromise, because not doing so will mean political failure, hence no progress.

I question if political success has brought us any meaningful progress. Further, I point to the guidance of the Church. Note the document I have linked to several times. If there is an interpretation other than “limiting the harm” cannot be used to justify compromsing fundemental morals, or that certain principles (the document lists nine examples) should never be compromised, I cannot see it. I’ve invited others to go throught the document and explain an alternate interpretation, but, so far, no one has done so.

This does not make me ‘right’ and others ‘wrong’. But I do think it should make us more cautious in declaring our own decisions and compromises the only true and proper path. Think about it. Vern has called me a “pro abortionist”, Ender has argued that my thinking, regarding wholly voting Catholic pro-life teaching is “the problem”, and Agnes has declared that my recommendation to “follow the Church and trust in God” is doing “nothing”.

Is taking the express recommendations of the Church on a subject very literally really that controversial a position?

The only compromise that my position requires is that I frequently have to give up on voting for a ‘viable’ candidate. I ‘sacrifice’ my political clout. Frankly, even back when I was a ‘significant contributor’, I’ve never felt that my political muscle was much to brag about, so it has been easy for me to give it up.

 

[SoCalRC]

Now a fella like me, just says "I vote the most pro life candidate, of the 2 major parties. I for sure DON’T vote for a guy that says he favors unfettered, on demand abortion. End of story.

I actually went back and added a paragraph to my response so that it would be longer than yours. But, since you are clear, does this mean that you do not care what Rome has to say about the matter?

 

[mapleoak]

Yes, that is my basic point. Our right to life teaching is “every stage” and “every condition” (CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI). If we compromise on one “attack on human life” or the “inalienable rights of the human person”, even for laudable reasons, we are undermining the entire teaching.

Many here argue that Catholics must compromise, because not doing so will mean political failure, hence no progress.

I question if political success has brought us any meaningful progress. Further, I point to the guidance of the Church. Note the document I have linked to several times. If there is an interpretation other than “limiting the harm” cannot be used to justify compromsing fundemental morals, or that certain principles (the document lists nine examples) should never be compromised, I cannot see it. I’ve invited others to go throught the document and explain an alternate interpretation, but, so far, no one has done so.
.
.
.
The only compromise that my position requires is that I frequently have to give up on voting for a ‘viable’ candidate. I ‘sacrifice’ my political clout. Frankly, even back when I was a ‘significant contributor’, I’ve never felt that my political muscle was much to brag about, so it has been easy for me to give it up.

In good conscience I have to agree that compromising or taking the middle ground is at least implicitly giving ones approval for the portion compromised.

 

[rlg94086]

In good conscience I have to agree that compromising or taking the middle ground is at least implicitly giving ones approval for the portion compromised.

So, this is interesting… If we could get consensus in Congress and the States to ban abortion, except in the case of rape or incest, are you saying that agreeing to such a compromise would be wrong in the Church’s eyes? Would my compromise be evil?

 

[janechantal]

Sure. We are only at a little over 500 posts…they don’t shut them down 'til 1000, and there is always something completely useless or argumentative to add.

It would be like saying “there is no room for dessert.” There is ***always ***room for empty calories.

this post or forum has covered, hashed, and redebated almost every aspect of this questions. Do we truly have to go on to 1000 replies…no longer is this dessert…let’s desert this to those who believe whatever they believe. We are left to only pray for those who are still in the dark over this! If you are Catholic and don’t believe in pro-life…we are praying for you. Our choice as Catholics is for life. That’s it! That’s the answer to this question…let it go, guys.!!!

 

[mapleoak]

So, this is interesting… If we could get consensus in Congress and the States to ban abortion, except in the case of rape or incest, are you saying that agreeing to such a compromise would be wrong in the Church’s eyes? Would my compromise be evil?

I think the difficulty in these type of illustrations comes in when the assumption is that given two options, one to totally end abortion and the other to totally allow abotion, is made. The intent can never be to be satisfied or approve of the fact that there would still be abortion in the cases of rape/incest.

 

[rlg94086]

I think the difficulty in these type of illustrations comes in when the assumption is that given two options, one to totally end abortion and the other to totally allow abotion, is made. The intent can never be to be satisfied or approve of the fact that there would still be abortion in the cases of rape/incest.

I don’t think I agree with you…it sounds like you are saying that you would vote against a bill which banned abortion except in the case of rape/incest, because you would then be “approving of the fact that there would still be abortion…” Is that correct?

You said there is an assumption of two options, but the very option I gave doesn’t fit either of the two you mentioned. It is, by definition, a compromise.

I wouldn’t be “satisfied,” and I would continue to work towards a complete ban. However, I would have no problem in approving of a compromise in the short term.

Can you clarify what you mean? Would you oppose such a compromise because it is not 100% in line with Church teaching?

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

I suggest following the Church, as completely as possible. That is, reject the culture of death outright and in its entirety. But, look at my handle, I am Roman Catholic so I think that following God is the answer, and the Church is the proper guide to God’s path.

I have not said that everyone should agree, just that those who disagree in different ways should have some Christian charity to each other.

Not quite correct. I disagree with trying to change the law by compromising on fundemental moral values. The reason we have abortions is not the law, but the attitudes and actions of society. You can’t make people value fetal life more highly if you compromise on life in forms they more readily recognize.

Again, I recommend following the Church as wholly as possible. As a Roman Catholic, I think that Rome is the best interpretter of Catholic Doctrine. So, the document I most often point to is a Doctrinal Note, from Rome (approved by our last Pope, prepared by our current one as Prefect), addressed to the lay faithful, and on the specific subject of voting.

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

I have walked through #4, literally a few sentences at a time, and presented my understanding. I have invited others here to do the same, and show how the section can be construed to match their beliefs.

So far, the only response has been to take snippets from a USCCB document and argue that those, somehow, disprove my interpretation. I have gone through those alternate quotes, explained how I do not believe that they are in conflict with my interpretation, and noted that the USCCB also distributes the Vatican document to the US faithful.

However, even if my interpretation of the USCCB document is wrong, there is still the Vatican’s document. The ultimate authority on applying Roman Catholicism is the Pope. All authority of the Bishops comes from him. It is only teaching in unison with the Pope that the bishops reflect the infallibility of the Church. So, if any interpretation of Church Doctrine is licit, it should be able to be reconciled with a Doctrinal Note from Rome!

So far, I have not seen this attempted. Mine appears to be the only interpretation that has been presented.

I have no problem with you, or anyone else, deciding that you must compromise on principles the Church has deemed ‘non negotiable’ because of your conscience regarding one particular teaching. My problem is when the situation arises that “follow the Church as dutifully and completely as you can” and “trust in God, not politicians” are derided as positions that are “part of the problem” or “typical pro abortion doublespeak”.

It is one thing to hear such disregard for Rome and the US Princes of the Church from Protestants - they reject the primacy of the Church, or Evangelicals - they reject our legitimacy as Christians, but from Catholics?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do a lot of work with our local Right to Life chapter. Sometimes we are able to save one child.

Should we not save that child because we cannot save them all?

 

[BamaRider]

I actually went back and added a paragraph to my response so that it would be longer than yours

LOL. I knew you wouldn’t let me down.

But, since you are clear, does this mean that you do not care what Rome has to say about the matter?

Of course I do, and I’ve never voted otherwise.

 

[mapleoak]

I don’t think I agree with you…it sounds like you are saying that you would vote against a bill which banned abortion except in the case of rape/incest, because you would then be “approving of the fact that there would still be abortion…” Is that correct?

No, not exactly. Because in this situation, to vote against the bill is to vote for the only other available option, which is to vote for complete legalized abortion. Given this situation I would not vote against the bill, but would abstain from voting.

You said there is an assumption of two options, but the very option I gave doesn’t fit either of the two you mentioned. It is, by definition, a compromise.

I wouldn’t be “satisfied,” and I would continue to work towards a complete ban. However, I would have no problem in approving of a compromise in the short term.

I am not saying it would be wrong for you to vote for compromise, only that personally, I could not in good conscience.

 

[mapleoak]

I do a lot of work with our local Right to Life chapter. Sometimes we are able to save one child.

Should we not save that child because we cannot save them all?

Yes we should do all we can to save that one child. This is the probably the hardest sticking point for me, so help me out. I would have a very hard time reconciling or justifying saying it is okay to kill some so that others can live.