Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[vern_humphrey]

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.

We do not say it is okay to kill some so that others can live. We say we must save all we can, and are deeply sorrowful that we cannot save all.

In other words, we say just the opposite of “it is okay to kill some so that others can live.” We say it is wrong to fail to save all we can, just because we cannot save all.

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

REPLY TO SoCalRC
I haven’t learned how to highlight a quote so I’m sorry this is the only way I can reply to your post. I apologize if my words in previous posts come across to you as lacking in Christian charity but I am still trying to understand “where you are coming from”.

Attempts to repeal a permissive abortion law is not to compromise on other fundamental moral values more readily recognizeable.

I have printed out and read all nine pages of the Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. The deliberations of the USCCB are not relevant to me, being a British citizen, but the moral principles we are debating concerning the natural law of God, as understood by the Catholic Church which are unchangeable and immutable, are.

The document is mostly clear and lucid. The second paragraph of section 2) endorses my view that poverty is irrelevant to the abortion issue. I quote:

A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualisation and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the priciples of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy. As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemoral cultural and moral trends,as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life - through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy - on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

I follow the Church as dutifully and completely as I can and trust in God, not politicans. I don’t like disparaging remarks on Protestants/Evangelicals by any poster to this thread. With my centuries old English Catholic ancestry ( no Irish either), I don’t identify with non Catholics on moral teachings.

Perhaps it is these two sentence in paragraph 4) that you are judging me on:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.”

To chose to fight the abortion law is not in any way “to the detriment of the whole of catholic doctrine”. My choice of the words “single issue” on abortion suggests a contradiction so I must clearly cease to use it but I do claim that my other activities in my christian endeavours do not isolate the abortion issue from the Church’s social doctrine. It is the above that possibly is at the root of all the disagreements on this thread, but it is surely a sweeping judgement that all the people who are militant pro life in the political arena are not thereby fulfilling their obligation to the common good. To carp on about all the other aspects of the Church’s social doctrine in the context of discussion about the evils of abortion suggests an attitude of “if you can’t win 'em all, don’t bother with any.” Is this what pro choice Catholics are doing? Is this what you are trying to convey? What a remarkable cop out!

But this is followed up by, - quote:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise, or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. THIS IS THE CASE WITH LAWS CONCERNING ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA!” Emphasis mine!

I interpret the above as a clear indication that we should get involved in attempting to change the law on abortion and furthermore it is disingenous to claim that it won’t make any difference to the numbers because “abortion is not a matter of law” as you maintain.

So SoCal RC we will have to agree to disagree. It is difficult not to be judgemental about others we disagree with. It is a besetting sin of mine, that’s why I frequent the confessional! Other folks are getting bored and my husband and I are off on Thursday to our apartment in Medjugorje with no computer! Pray for me as I will for you.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

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

I am shocked mapleoak. I am not saying this to be mean, because we all have to search our conscience and vote accordingly, but I am very, very glad that most pro-lifers don’t think that way.

If we could get support for a bill banning abortion with the exception of rape and incest, 99% of pro-life legislators would rightly jump at the chance to vote ‘yes’ on that bill. Abstaining would make it more difficult for the bill to pass. As you said, the “only other available option” would be the status quo (i.e. legalized abortion). If I were in Congress, abstained on such a vote, and it failed by one vote I would not be able to reconcile my vote with the tremendous number of lives lost.

 

[BamaRider]

Agnes said-

haven’t learned how to highlight a quote so I’m sorry this is the only way I can reply to your post. I apologize if my words in previous posts come across to you as lacking in Christian charity but I am still trying to understand **“where you are coming from”. **

M’am when you figure that out, kindly let the rest of us know.

He often fusses at me for not paying attention, but I’m plainly not the only one around that gets lost in his rationality.

 

[mapleoak]

I am shocked mapleoak. I am not saying this to be mean, because we all have to search our conscience and vote accordingly, but I am very, very glad that most pro-lifers don’t think that way.

If we could get support for a bill banning abortion with the exception of rape and incest, 99% of pro-life legislators would rightly jump at the chance to vote ‘yes’ on that bill. Abstaining would make it more difficult for the bill to pass. As you said, the “only other available option” would be the status quo (i.e. legalized abortion). If I were in Congress, abstained on such a vote, and it failed by one vote I would not be able to reconcile my vote with the tremendous number of lives lost.

I had mentioned that this was a difficult dilemna and one has to consider what the effect of an action is while making sure that consent to the evil is not tacitly implied so as to cause scandal. As Vern put it (and which makes a lot of sense):

we say just the opposite of “it is okay to kill some so that others can live.” We say it is wrong to fail to save all we can, just because we cannot save all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agnes said-

M’am when you figure that out, kindly let the rest of us know.

He often fusses at me for not paying attention, but I’m plainly not the only one around that gets lost in his rationality.

It’s like eating cotton candy – no matter how many bites you take, you can’t get a mouthful.

 

[Drlit]

EVERYBODY MUST MUST SEE GLENN BECK TONIGHT (MAY 8) on CNN HEADLINE NEWS!!!

There is a doctor on who believes that LIFE does not begin until AGE 2!!! And that it should be legal to kill your handicapped, physically deformed or ill child prior to that age!!!

It is what I have been saying for years, the ABORTION MENTALITY will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.

I read an article (in Utne Reader I think) where a guy said that a fetus is not protected by the Right to Life because it doesn’t have a birth certificate. Hence, a new-born child left in a dumpster isn’t a protected human either!!!

Now someone proposes to raise the age of “real life” to 2 YEARS!!!

Watch and learn!

 

[Sham7]

I cannot vote Republican(some think of this party as “ProLife”, I do not) because it is intrinisically evil with regard to its inconsistencies with regard to respect for life.

The Democratic party is more consistent and so I think of them as the best “Pro Life” party at this point in time.

I really do not think that either party represents my view or, more importantly, Our Lord’s. Maybe it is time that we start a Catholic political party?
Then, we can make abortion illegal,
war extremely hard to enter in to, defeat big Tobacco, alcohol, and other vices(porn) that hurt a human being and a society, develop a system that favors the worker and gives the entrepreneur a fair gain on their risk(yes, limited), punish corporate greed, create a health care system that truly serves the patient and not the insurance companies, pharmeceutical companies, etc, create an education system that includes in the public arena a choice to learn about their faith of choice, and much much more. Feel free to share the much much more in this blog, ok? tks

Hey, all change begins with an idea? We need to stand up for ourselves much like the “religious right” has done.
It is not the only way, as we all continue to pray, but it is a duty of us citizens and Catholics to participate in our democracy toward the ends that we value.

Easier said than done? yep, darn it, but must do something

Hangin in there,
sham7

 

[Starwynd]

For those who are curious here is a web site for pro-choice Catholics:

catholicsforchoice.org/

I’m not sure if it’s been posted before.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I cannot vote Republican(some think of this party as “ProLife”, I do not) because it is intrinisically evil with regard to its inconsistencies with regard to respect for life.

The Democratic party is more consistent and so I think of them as the best “Pro Life” party at this point in time.

I really do not think that either party represents my view or, more importantly, Our Lord’s. Maybe it is time that we start a Catholic political party?
Then, we can make abortion illegal,
war extremely hard to enter in to, defeat big Tobacco, alcohol, and other vices(porn) that hurt a human being and a society, develop a system that favors the worker and gives the entrepreneur a fair gain on their risk(yes, limited), punish corporate greed, create a health care system that truly serves the patient and not the insurance companies, pharmeceutical companies, etc, create an education system that includes in the public arena a choice to learn about their faith of choice, and much much more. Feel free to share the much much more in this blog, ok? tks

Hey, all change begins with an idea? We need to stand up for ourselves much like the “religious right” has done.
It is not the only way, as we all continue to pray, but it is a duty of us citizens and Catholics to participate in our democracy toward the ends that we value.

Easier said than done? yep, darn it, but must do something

Hangin in there,
sham7

Here are excerpts from the platform of your the best “Pro Life” party at this point in time.

**Pursue embryonic stem cell research **
Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 Jul 10, 2004

**Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay **
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004

**Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right **
Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000

 

[Sham7]

Unfortunately, voting on making abortion illegal is not the only issue; that is why I recommended a Catholic party to cover all the bases and not just stay fixated on one issue only. They all count and matter collectively. No one single issue dictates to a fellow Catholic how to vote. Jesus knew that and left us with His helpful quote: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s” He did not say one or the other, He did not say that one was more important than the other, but he did leave us His example to work for social justice in all areas of life and not just one.

Amen,
sham7

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unfortunately, voting on making abortion illegal is not the only issue; that is why I recommended a Catholic party to cover all the bases and not just stay fixated on one issue only. They all count and matter collectively. No one single issue dictates to a fellow Catholic how to vote. Jesus knew that and left us with His helpful quote: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s” He did not say one or the other, He did not say that one was more important than the other, but he did leave us His example to work for social justice in all areas of life and not just one.

Amen,
sham7

So once again, I ask the old question: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[Sham7]

Yes, absolutely, positively, the answer is yes, a Catholic can morally vote for either candidate as they are both imperfect and one issue is not the deciding factor, but a collective discernment of all of them.

Amen,
sham7

A CATHOLIC CAN MORALLY VOTE FOR EITHER MAJOR PARTY IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM

 

[frankadams]

So once again, I ask the old question: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, 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.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…CStatement.pdf

Well, abortion in the case of rape and incest is an intrinsic evil, and the Republican candidates have supported it, while the Democrats support abortion-on-demand, also an intrinsic evil…

It looks like the bishops are answering your question as a solid “Yes.”

 

[mapleoak]

So once again, I ask the old question: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

I honestly didn’t believe someone was going to actually answer “yes” to that question, and so bluntly at that. I guess I was wrong.

 

[mapleoak]

]A CATHOLIC CAN MORALLY VOTE FOR EITHER MAJOR PARTY IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM

A Catholic cannot morally vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, absolutely, positively, the answer is yes, a Catholic can morally vote for either candidate as they are both imperfect and one issue is not the deciding factor, but a collective discernment of all of them.

Amen,
sham7

A CATHOLIC CAN MORALLY VOTE FOR EITHER MAJOR PARTY IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM

I don’t want to put words in your mouth – are you saying a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate?s

That’s kind of like saying a Catholic could morally vote for Hitler.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, 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.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…CStatement.pdf

Well, abortion in the case of rape and incest is an intrinsic evil, and the Republican candidates have supported it, while the Democrats support abortion-on-demand, also an intrinsic evil…

It looks like the bishops are answering your question as a solid “Yes.”

Whizzz!

What a way to spin it!

So if one candidate will allow millions of abortions a year – and have the taxpayers fund the abortion clinic, and the other wants to outlaw 98.5% of abortions (rape and incest together amount to about 1.5%) there is no moral difference between them?

Tell me, it there a moral difference between a child falsely telling his mother he’s finished his homework, and a witness at a trial falsely swearing he saw an innocent man commit a murder?

(Hint; The Catholic Church says there is.)

 

[frankadams]

I don’t want to put words in your mouth – are you saying a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate?s

That’s kind of like saying a Catholic could morally vote for Hitler.

Funny you should use Hitler as your example. Using your math, a Catholic could morally vote for Hitler if he were running against a pro-abortion candidate so long as the number of people he planned to exterminate would be less than the number of people that would be exterminated by abortion.

 

[frankadams]

Whizzz!

What a way to spin it!

So if one candidate will allow millions of abortions a year – and have the taxpayers fund the abortion clinic, and the other wants to outlaw 98.5% of abortions (rape and incest together amount to about 1.5%) there is no moral difference between them?

Tell me, it there a moral difference between a child falsely telling his mother he’s finished his homework, and a witness at a trial falsely swearing he saw an innocent man commit a murder?

(Hint; The Catholic Church says there is.)

The bishops do not offer guidance on which statistics to use when “deeming.” Your “careful deliberation” may involve looking at those particular statistics and nothing else. Other Catholics might include additional information and reach a different conclusion than you. If they do, then, according to this document, they can morally support the pro-abortion candidate.