Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StTommyMore said:
I did not make that up. You support abortion rights, which is nothing short of diabolical.
Click to expand...
Such language can get us nowhere in political debates and in enacting legislation that overturns the status quo.

Calling the other side “diabolical”, “fanatical”, “stupid”, etc. gets us nowhere. Learn to work with the other side so that your way can be considered and enacted. If this doesn’t work, then at least there will be a compromise. And one less murdered baby is better than zero babies saved.
 
StTommyMore said:
I did not make that up. You support abortion rights, which is nothing short of diabolical.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you’re lying – you made that up. I’ll bet you can’t find a single post to support that claim.
 
rlg94086 said:
:rotfl:

Exactly! As I said earlier, a homosexual union can’t even produce a child, so I would think abortion doesn’t come up much in a homosexual relationship. 😛
Click to expand...
Can the “it’s Bush’s fault posts” be far behind?
 
StAnastasia said:
1234, I don’t know the details of the Arizona pulmonary hypertension case, and perhaps we should deal with that elsewhere. But if you have any useful web links detailing the medical facts, I would be interested in learning about them.
Click to expand...
I assume that you’re referring to the Ariz case, which did involve pulmonary hypertension. You can easily google “arizona abortion pulmonary hypertension” to get relevant articles. I don’t recall seeing anything in the medical literature as the dangers to the mother are well-established fact.

What I recall is that a mother of 4 living children had pulmonary hypertension, an incurable disease, and was pregnant and getting a lot worse. She shouldn’t have gotten pregnant, of course. She entered a Catholic hospital, didn’t improve, as the pregnancy greatly worsened her condition, and had an elective abortion. She should have been transferred to a non-Catholic hospital for the abortion or/and shouldn’t have been admitted to the Catholic hospital, which is one of the largest in the region. Apparently she was felt to be too unstable to be moved. Anyway, she had the abortion.

A number of Catholic moral theologians supported the decision. Most Americans support access to abortion, with numbers in the 60 percentile range, especially in situations like this, according to a recent survey of attitudes towards Supreme Court decisions. This support isn’t likely to change anytime soon.
 
1234 said:
I assume that you’re referring to the Ariz case, which did involve pulmonary hypertension. You can easily google “arizona abortion pulmonary hypertension” to get relevant articles. I don’t recall seeing anything in the medical literature as the dangers to the mother are well-established fact.

What I recall is that a mother of 4 living children had pulmonary hypertension, an incurable disease, and was pregnant and getting a lot worse. She shouldn’t have gotten pregnant, of course. She entered a Catholic hospital, didn’t improve, as the pregnancy greatly worsened her condition, and had an elective abortion. She should have been transferred to a non-Catholic hospital for the abortion or/and shouldn’t have been admitted to the Catholic hospital, which is one of the largest in the region. Apparently she was felt to be too unstable to be moved. Anyway, she had the abortion.

A number of Catholic moral theologians supported the decision. Most Americans support access to abortion, with numbers in the 60 percentile range, especially in situations like this, according to a recent survey of attitudes towards Supreme Court decisions. This support isn’t likely to change anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is sad that so many Catholics are so poorly catechized. There was actually an ethical solution to the case you mention, which for some mysterious reason the doctors chose not to pursue:

osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6450/Sisters-abortion-approval-draws-automatic-excommu.aspx
 
Wanner47, thank you for posting that article. William Chavira, a member of the Diocese of Phoenix medical ethics board makes an interesting claim. I wonder if this is widely known and/or widely accepted?
If the hospital was faced with that dire situation, Chavira wonders why the staff didn’t attempt to induce early labor with the goal of expelling the placenta, which produces a hormone that affects blood flow and may have been a significant factor in the woman’s condition.
Click to expand...
But this procedure also likely means the baby’s death because the child is too premature to survive outside the womb. How is this an acceptable medical option in Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
“The difference there is that we induce labor prior to viability with the idea of emptying the uterus or treating the pathology at that point,” Chavira said. “The baby will probably not survive given where science is in this day and age in preserving premature babies, but my intention is to treat the mother’s disease, not to kill the baby.”
Click to expand...
osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6450/Sisters-abortion-approval-draws-automatic-excommu.aspx
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I don’t think there’s any doctoring at all. They surveyed a large number of Catholics without determining the degree of their being catechized, and this is the percentage they came up with: “Only 19% of white Catholics, and 30% of Latino Catholics, are faithful to Catholic teaching, which opposes the legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

It’s not the poll takers’ fault that so few Catholics feel that way.
Click to expand...
Many of my wife’s long-standing family of Catholics do not oppose civil marriage for gays. They just don’t want the CC to have to perform any.

That’s an informal survey: holiday conversations.
 
There is the legal distinction of marriage. Then there is the sacrament. It is absurd to think that homosexuals can be married in a sacramental sense. A union recognized in civil law is another question.
 
David_Rich21 said:
There is the legal distinction of marriage. Then there is the sacrament. It is absurd to think that homosexuals can be married in a sacramental sense. A union recognized in civil law is another question.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts, which is why I support Civil Unions with the same legal rights as a married couple.
 
MarianD said:
Exactly my thoughts, which is why I support Civil Unions with the same legal rights as a married couple.
Click to expand...
I am leery of the endorsement of an intrinsically disordered sexuality by the state.
 
StTommyMore said:
I am leery of the endorsement of an intrinsically disordered sexuality by the state.
Click to expand...
Are you against legal procedures for divorce? Should political candidates state that they will try to end divorce law since it is explicitly against God’s will and the Catholic Church?

Just wondering how far you extend this protection against disordered or immoral sexuality. Adultery is one of the big ten, after all.
 
David_Rich21 said:
There is the legal distinction of marriage. Then there is the sacrament. It is absurd to think that homosexuals can be married in a sacramental sense. A union recognized in civil law is another question.
Click to expand...
Your comments perfectly differentiates civil and sacramental marriage. This news story says a majority of Catholics support homosexual unions, but I doubt a majority of Catholics would support sacramental marriage for homosexuals nor do I believe homosexuals would want it.
 
larkin31 said:
Are you against legal procedures for divorce? Should political candidates state that they will try to end divorce law since it is explicitly against God’s will and the Catholic Church?

Just wondering how far you extend this protection against disordered or immoral sexuality. Adultery is one of the big ten, after all.
Click to expand...
In Irael, divorce was allowed for as a concession. The real question we must ask is this: “Is divorce and remarriage in opposition to the natural law”?
 
Okay, this is something that’s bugging me. We have people here who are saying that a person’s Catholicism cannot be taken away from them if they actively disagree and promote a position that runs contrary to the Teachings of the Church.

By that logic, you may as well as argue that Marcion was Catholic despite promoting Gnosticism which is outright incompatible with our faith. St. Polycarp had no problem in addressing that heretic in less than warm terms. Arius promoted that Christ was of a different substance than the Father, thus promoting Tritheism (whether he came to understand his error is another thing entirely).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top