Discourse with a non-Catholic concerning abortion (Church position)

[Spoken4]

A certain “friend” has been peppering me with questions and debate on matters of the Catholic Faith, our traditions and teachings, and the Church’s positions on social issues. He isn’t a Catholic, and seems to me to be decidedly anti-Catholic. Most of the time, I can easily support the Church’s side-- but once in a while my “friend” will throw something out there that I really can’t answer well.

One topic that he raised, which I really can’t debate because I was either not yet born or was simply too young to understand as it was happening, is as follows:

*The Catholic Church is so much against abortion and has the mindset that ‘We MUST save the babies!’ Yet up until the time that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, the Catholic Church was rather mum on the whole abortion issue. In the '50s and '60s the Church was so worried about keeping kids from smoking pot, and keeping gays out of the military. There was almost nothing heard from the Church on abortion until AFTER Roe v. Wade passed.

If the Church had spent more time and energy on fighting the abortion decision and less on pot smoking and gays in the service, then there would likely have been a different outcome. Now it seems as though the Church is backpedaling because they got caught with their pants down so to speak. So why would the Church have spent so much energy on dope and gays when this was going on right in front of them? Isn’t the Church kind of trying to shut the barn door after the horse got loose?*

I might mention that the person has a brother who is gay (but not currently active), and another brother who smokes dope, so I would imagine that this is part of where the questions come from. Also, this person is a Christian and knowledgeable of Scripture but he is not practicing any formal religious faith. He also refuses to set foot into a Catholic church or even meet a priest or deacon. He was raised up in a Protestant household that didn’t practice much other than going to church a few times a month, and he has bad memories.

Any help on how I can defend or support the Church in this discussion/debate? Some sources that I can share with him for further reading would be very helpful… for me, too.

Thank you and God bless!

~Spoken4

 

[Corki]

As always, when someone makes a wild assertion about the Church, demand a reference.

I was involved with my Catholic school’s anti-abortion protests starting in 1969 - well before Roe v Wade. While it is true that there was a famous Church statement condemning abortion that was written in 1974 (the year after RvW), the document included a summary of the condemnations of several previous Popes.

But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. **The first Council of Mainz in 847 **reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed “on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb.”[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: “That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived.”[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that “abortion is a grave sin against the natural law.” [11] At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life “which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator.”[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: “Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not bee afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church “has not changed and it is unchangeable.” [18]

(from the CDF document Declaration on Procured Abortion) bolding mine.

Up to the time of RvW (and for some time afterwards) ALL major branches of Christianity strongly condemned abortion. That’s the only reason you don’t hear the voice of the Catholic Church during that time; the anti-abortion position was the Christian norm. The Catholic Church did not “switch on” anti-abortion rhetoric as your friend asserts. She simply maintained the position she has consistently held in spite of a shift in teaching by other religious groups.

 

[Spoken4]

Ha, Corki-- that’s sweet! LOVE IT!! And he actually did mention the 1974 statement (I was just a little girl then). My reply was to direct him to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, namely 2259-2262 and specifically 2268-2275 which deal with homicide and abortion… and the appropriate Scriptures that support the Catechism.

But his reply was, “So why did we all hear more about the Church’s stance on dope and gays than abortion?”

Honestly, I can’t answer that because I was just too young to know what was going on… but I do remember hearing a lot about abortion. I don’t think I even knew what a homosexual was, and I just knew that “gay” meant “happy” and nothing else. What can I say? I was just a kid and my friend is a good 10 years older than I am.

~Spoken4

 

[Corki]

Well, unfortunately I am not too young.

Growing up in the 60s and 70s I don’t remember ever hearing the Church having a stance on “dope”. If your friend was in a Catholic high school at the time, he may have been getting an extra emphasis on that from the priests in charge. It was a big problem for teens.

As for homosexuality, I never heard a Church statement on it until college and that was by way of the Dignity chapter at our school - not exactly an avenue of real Church teaching.

Just guessing, but his “we all hear more” perception is probably based on his own pastor’s emphasis (or his 40 year old recollection of such) and not on what the Church as a whole was teaching and preaching. That doesn’t mean that his perception isn’t valid but it may not be representative of the whole.

 

[Spoken4]

My friend is not a Catholic, and is not actively practicing any formal religion. While only God knows what’s in my friend’s heart, on the outside my friend seems lukewarm in whatever faith he does have-- again, that’s my perception and only God knows what my friend’s faith really is.

I was only 7 when RvW passed, and these sorts of things weren’t discussed in our home, not around me anyway. My parents never really talked about drug use with me until I was going into junior high (public), and we NEVER talked about homosexuality-- it was taboo, and wasn’t discussed. Nor do I recall ever hearing about these things in church… of course, my friend is going back to the decades before I was even born, when he claims that the Church was harping on these issues rather than abortion.

Just guessing, but his “we all hear more” perception is probably based on his own pastor’s emphasis (or his 40 year old recollection of such) and not on what the Church as a whole was teaching and preaching. That doesn’t mean that his perception isn’t valid but it may not be representative of the whole.

Kind of like the mindset of, “Back in the day, EVERYONE did…”, when perhaps it was just “everyone” in his circle that did such-and-such. Of course, he grew up in one part of the country and I grew up somewhere else. Perhaps in his area, that was the drumbeat, though not everywhere else. Difference, perhaps between the “Bible Belt” and the “Rust Belt”, maybe…

~Spoken4

 

[manualman]

Abortion was a fairly minor issue (in America) until Roe legalized it in the early 70’s. Most states banned it. People were trying to in states that allowed it.

The Church doesn’t spend a lot of time RIGHT NOW reminding people not to commit murder. She doesn’t have to. The culture at large already unanimously agrees and she can spend her exhortation energies elsewhere, addressing problems were large numbers of people ARE falling for the allure of sin.

Abortion was not introduced in America as a result of popular demand. It was an excercise of appalling judicial seizure of power (even pro-abortion justice Ginsburg argeed that it was a horrible ruling on legal grounds, though she pointedly refuses to overturn it). Supreme Court justices imposed Roe on America in a way that reversed the legislative process the Constitution intends. They created new law from thin air in such a way that only an amendment can overturn it. This isn’t just a tragedy for babies, it is a threat to America herself. Roe has to go not just to save the unborn, but to reverse the precedent that new laws can be imposed on us by the fiat of 9 unelected justices.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I also grew up in the Church in the 1960s and 1970s an don’t remember much, if any emphasis or teaching in the Church on drugs or homosexuality. There was some teaching against becoming involved in the occult, as that was an obsession in popular culture during that period, and that there were connections between the drug subculture and the occult subculture was occasionally mentioned.

Birth control (including abortion) was condemned by every major Christian denomination until the 1920s, when the mainline Protestant denominations began peeling off on the issue of birth control, one by one. If you look at Catholic apologetics works from the beginning of the 20th century on, there is frequent discussion and condemnation of artificial methods of bith control.

The early Church Fathers spoke out passionately against abortion since the earliest days of the Catholic Church. This is from the Didache, an early teaching of the Church from the 1st Century A.D.:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. “Do not covet your neighbor’s property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness”; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is “a deadly snare.” Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.

 

[1ke]

And not just in Catholic school. As a public school child of the 70s, the anti-dope thing was in full swing there as well.

 

[Spoken4]

Manualman, that’s a great analogy:

The Church doesn’t spend a lot of time RIGHT NOW reminding people not to commit murder. She doesn’t have to. The culture at large already unanimously agrees and she can spend her exhortation energies elsewhere, addressing problems were large numbers of people ARE falling for the allure of sin.

However, when I took that sort of tack with my friend, he responded that “Pot is and was illegal back in those days and it’s still illegal on a Federal level. Most states had laws on the books outlawing unnatural sexual acts, the so called ‘buggery’ or ‘sodomy’ laws so that essentially made homosexual acts against the law. Yet the Church prattled on and on about THOSE issues while saying very little about abortion which was already illegal in many states, just like pot and ‘buggery’. So why would the Church suddenly turn to abortion after such a long silence ont he matter?”

I again pointed to the Catechism, but he shooed that off as “private” teaching rather than public, and basically repeated himself.

Abortion was not introduced in America as a result of popular demand. It was an excercise of appalling judicial seizure of power (even pro-abortion justice Ginsburg argeed that it was a horrible ruling on legal grounds, though she pointedly refuses to overturn it). Supreme Court justices imposed Roe on America in a way that reversed the legislative process the Constitution intends. They created new law from thin air in such a way that only an amendment can overturn it. This isn’t just a tragedy for babies, it is a threat to America herself. Roe has to go not just to save the unborn, but to reverse the precedent that new laws can be imposed on us by the fiat of 9 unelected justices.

Hmmm, great point and very true. But if I bring this up in debate, I know that he’ll rebut me by saying that I’m deflecting the argument… “This is about the CHURCH’S position, not the Court’s. See? The Church could have and should have spoken up more before the abortion issue made it to the courts, then it likely would have not passed considering how broad the Catholic Church is. But you all spent more effort on battling drugs and gays than on stopping RvW and abortions, and now you are trying to put the genie back into the bottle. If the Courts had been stopped back then, perhaps that precedent would not have been set.”

I know how this guy thinks, and I anticipate this sort of a rebuttal from him.

EDITED to add:

from Arizona Mike: Birth control (including abortion) was condemned by every major Christian denomination until the 1920s, when the mainline Protestant denominations began peeling off on the issue of birth control, one by one. If you look at Catholic apologetics works from the beginning of the 20th century on, there is frequent discussion and condemnation of artificial methods of bith control.

The early Church Fathers spoke out passionately against abortion since the earliest days of the Catholic Church. This is from the Didache, an early teaching of the Church from the 1st Century A.D.:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:… SNIP

Also very true on the peeling-off, AM. The Didache is certainly an excellent reference, but knowing this guy he would call it “Catholic propaganda”. I’ll use that in my rebuttal/argument for it certainly is true. And isn’t it something that here are at least 2 Catholics, a bit older than myself and of the generation in question, who don’t recall a hue and cry against pot and gay people-- military or otherwise. And just when did the big push against gays in the military start anyway? I personally don’t recall any loud outcry prior to the start of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”

~Spoken4

 

[Corki]

Manualman, that’s a great analogy:

However, when I took that sort of tack with my friend, he responded that “Pot is and was illegal back in those days and it’s still illegal on a Federal level. Most states had laws on the books outlawing unnatural sexual acts, the so called ‘buggery’ or ‘sodomy’ laws so that essentially made homosexual acts against the law. Yet the Church prattled on and on about THOSE issues while saying very little about abortion which was already illegal in many states, just like pot and ‘buggery’. So why would the Church suddenly turn to abortion after such a long silence ont he matter?”

I again pointed to the Catechism, but he shooed that off as “private” teaching rather than public, and basically repeated himself.

Hmmm, great point and very true. But if I bring this up in debate, I know that he’ll rebut me by saying that I’m deflecting the argument… “This is about the CHURCH’S position, not the Court’s. See? The Church could have and should have spoken up more before the abortion issue made it to the courts, then it likely would have not passed considering how broad the Catholic Church is. But you all spent more effort on battling drugs and gays than on stopping RvW and abortions, and now you are trying to put the genie back into the bottle. If the Courts had been stopped back then, perhaps that precedent would not have been set.”

I know how this guy thinks, and I anticipate this sort of a rebuttal from him.

~Spoken4

He doesn’t sound like the sort of person you can have a logical discussion with. He is using only his own experience to support his position and discounts actual documentation you use to refute him.

The Church did speak out forcefully about abortion before RvW. The current Catechism wasn’t published until the 1980s so it isn’t a good reflection of what was being “pushed” pre-Roe.

The distinction between public and private teaching is bogus too. The CCC is about as public as you can get. It’s free online.

The fact is that pre-Vatican II, there was not a lot of public teaching directed at non-Catholics. Most of our documents were for the education of Catholics and especially of priests and bishops who were charged with teaching the faithful. It was only after GAUDIUM ET SPES (The Church in the Modern World), a VII document, that you started seeing these public statements directed to all and not just to those already in the Church. Sure, there were Vatican and USCCB communicaiton with government entities but not public declarations.

And one of the first and loudest topics of those public declarations was about abortion.

And not just in Catholic school. As a public school child of the 70s, the anti-dope thing was in full swing there as well.

Absolutely. I was just trying to hazzard a guess as to how this guy had the perception that “the Church” put all her efforts into anti-dope initiaitives.

 

[sw85]

A certain “friend” has been peppering me with questions and debate on matters of the Catholic Faith, our traditions and teachings, and the Church’s positions on social issues. He isn’t a Catholic, and seems to me to be decidedly anti-Catholic. Most of the time, I can easily support the Church’s side-- but once in a while my “friend” will throw something out there that I really can’t answer well.

One topic that he raised, which I really can’t debate because I was either not yet born or was simply too young to understand as it was happening, is as follows:

*The Catholic Church is so much against abortion and has the mindset that ‘We MUST save the babies!’ Yet up until the time that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, the Catholic Church was rather mum on the whole abortion issue. In the '50s and '60s the Church was so worried about keeping kids from smoking pot, and keeping gays out of the military. There was almost nothing heard from the Church on abortion until AFTER Roe v. Wade passed.

If the Church had spent more time and energy on fighting the abortion decision and less on pot smoking and gays in the service, then there would likely have been a different outcome. Now it seems as though the Church is backpedaling because they got caught with their pants down so to speak. So why would the Church have spent so much energy on dope and gays when this was going on right in front of them? Isn’t the Church kind of trying to shut the barn door after the horse got loose?*

I might mention that the person has a brother who is gay (but not currently active), and another brother who smokes dope, so I would imagine that this is part of where the questions come from. Also, this person is a Christian and knowledgeable of Scripture but he is not practicing any formal religious faith. He also refuses to set foot into a Catholic church or even meet a priest or deacon. He was raised up in a Protestant household that didn’t practice much other than going to church a few times a month, and he has bad memories.

Any help on how I can defend or support the Church in this discussion/debate? Some sources that I can share with him for further reading would be very helpful… for me, too.

Thank you and God bless!

~Spoken4

With due respect to your friend, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an argument quite as stupid.

Of course the Church didn’t fight legal abortion before abortion was legal. That’s… nonsense. Fighting it now is not “shutting the barn door after the horse got loose” (which, incidentally, is a good policy if you happen to have other horses); it’s trying to get the horse back in the barn.

If the Church fought drugs and sodomy more heavily in the 50s and 60s, it’s because drugs and sodomy were the most pressing moral assaults on society’s moral consensus at the time. It was pretty widely agreed that abortion was an evil and it was already largely forbidden in most of the country. What in the world was the Church to do about something that was already largely unavailable and which they were already providing alternatives to?

 

[Spoken4]

Corki: “Absolutely. I was just trying to hazzard a guess as to how this guy had the perception that “the Church” put all her efforts into anti-dope initiaitives.”

I was wondering the same thing.

Truthfully, the guy would rather climb a tree and think that he’s got the truth, rather than stand on the ground and actually receive it. Or something like that.

It was pretty widely agreed that abortion was an evil and it was already largely forbidden in most of the country. What in the world was the Church to do about something that was already largely unavailable and which they were already providing alternatives to?

Exactly, SW! And this is what I’ve been trying to get him to answer-- but it seems as though he can’t.

He does seem to have issue with the Catholic Church on several levels. We’ve had discourses on topics like priestly vestments (and he got the straight truth on that, and the whys and wherefores)… abuse by clergy-- had to set him straight and remind him that the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the world, and as a result we have more ministers [priests and other clergy] than any other denomination-- so even if the percentage of clerics who abuse is equal-- then simple math would say that a group that has a million ‘clerics’, and 1% go and abuse kids (high figure, I know, but easy math) as compared to another group that has only 50,000 clerics with 1% being abusers… well, it’s not that hard to figure out that of course the larger group will have more abusive members in total, even if the PERCENTAGE is the same! That’s what happens when you are the largest group of “anything”. I bet it’s safe to say that “1%” of atheists or Wiccans or Disciples of Kermit the Frog or simply the Gen-Pop also have their own indiscretions. Nah, Catholics are just “pedos” (snarky, poor logic-- sad coming from someone whose livelihood depends heavily on higher-order math skills). Admittedly, he’s dropped that argument when it was demonstrated how the math just didn’t add up. But here’s this latest…

Oh, and yeah-- we Catholics are stuck in the 1400’s, according to this guy. Even our artwork proves it. Shame we can’t say the same for our liturgical music sometimes! I’d rather sing the chants and golden moldy hymns of yesteryear, than some of these contemporary hymns with odd lyrics, weird tempo changes, and a melody written in the Key of H (for Horrid!)

But I digress…

~Spoken4

 

[Arizona_Mike]

And just when did the big push against gays in the military start anyway? I personally don’t recall any loud outcry prior to the start of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”

The UCMJ had always considered homosexuality an issue that could result in removal from service, and I think having same-sex sexual relations with another member of the service could be a criminal offense under the UCMJ. If you’ve ever seen the Matthew Broderick movie “Biloxi Blues,” there is a scene where a soldier in boot camp during WWII was caught having sex with another man and was sent to Ft. Leavenworth, which is historically accurate. There was really no hue and cry to allow gay people to serve in the military until fairly recently - during the era of the draft, more than a few straight inductees claimed to be gay to avoid getting out of Vietnam, so a lot of people on the left probably didn’t want to lose the option of claiming that exemption.

The military as an institution in America was not regarded highly for much of the 1960s and 1970s by many members of the media or academia, who tend to shape public discourse, so it wasn’t really an issue until the Reagan era, when the general public perception of the military began to rise, and gay-rights organizations began to push for open acceptance of gays in the military as a way to mainstream public perceptions of gays.

 

[sw85]

I was wondering the same thing.

Truthfully, the guy would rather climb a tree and think that he’s got the truth, rather than stand on the ground and actually receive it. Or something like that.

Exactly, SW! And this is what I’ve been trying to get him to answer-- but it seems as though he can’t.

He does seem to have issue with the Catholic Church on several levels. We’ve had discourses on topics like priestly vestments (and he got the straight truth on that, and the whys and wherefores)… abuse by clergy-- had to set him straight and remind him that the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the world, and as a result we have more ministers [priests and other clergy] than any other denomination-- so even if the percentage of clerics who abuse is equal-- then simple math would say that a group that has a million ‘clerics’, and 1% go and abuse kids (high figure, I know, but easy math) as compared to another group that has only 50,000 clerics with 1% being abusers… well, it’s not that hard to figure out that of course the larger group will have more abusive members in total, even if the PERCENTAGE is the same! That’s what happens when you are the largest group of “anything”. I bet it’s safe to say that “1%” of atheists or Wiccans or Disciples of Kermit the Frog or simply the Gen-Pop also have their own indiscretions. Nah, Catholics are just “pedos” (snarky, poor logic-- sad coming from someone whose livelihood depends heavily on higher-order math skills). Admittedly, he’s dropped that argument when it was demonstrated how the math just didn’t add up. But here’s this latest…

Oh, and yeah-- we Catholics are stuck in the 1400’s, according to this guy. Even our artwork proves it. Shame we can’t say the same for our liturgical music sometimes! I’d rather sing the chants and golden moldy hymns of yesteryear, than some of these contemporary hymns with odd lyrics, weird tempo changes, and a melody written in the Key of H (for Horrid!)

But I digress…

~Spoken4

I’ll happily take stained-glass windows, baroque music, and gothic architecture over the ugly modernity of brutalism, formalism, and ****** iron bridges that fall apart 15 years after being built. There’s a reason those big beautiful churches and bridges built thousands of years ago are still standing.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I was wondering the same thing.

Truthfully, the guy would rather climb a tree and think that he’s got the truth, rather than stand on the ground and actually receive it. Or something like that.

Exactly, SW! And this is what I’ve been trying to get him to answer-- but it seems as though he can’t.

He does seem to have issue with the Catholic Church on several levels. We’ve had discourses on topics like priestly vestments (and he got the straight truth on that, and the whys and wherefores)… abuse by clergy-- had to set him straight and remind him that the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the world, and as a result we have more ministers [priests and other clergy] than any other denomination-- so even if the percentage of clerics who abuse is equal-- then simple math would say that a group that has a million ‘clerics’, and 1% go and abuse kids (high figure, I know, but easy math) as compared to another group that has only 50,000 clerics with 1% being abusers… well, it’s not that hard to figure out that of course the larger group will have more abusive members in total, even if the PERCENTAGE is the same! That’s what happens when you are the largest group of “anything”. I bet it’s safe to say that “1%” of atheists or Wiccans or Disciples of Kermit the Frog or simply the Gen-Pop also have their own indiscretions. Nah, Catholics are just “pedos” (snarky, poor logic-- sad coming from someone whose livelihood depends heavily on higher-order math skills). Admittedly, he’s dropped that argument when it was demonstrated how the math just didn’t add up. But here’s this latest…

Oh, and yeah-- we Catholics are stuck in the 1400’s, according to this guy. Even our artwork proves it. Shame we can’t say the same for our liturgical music sometimes! I’d rather sing the chants and golden moldy hymns of yesteryear, than some of these contemporary hymns with odd lyrics, weird tempo changes, and a melody written in the Key of H (for Horrid!)

But I digress…

~Spoken4

You should tell him we are stuck in the 1st century.

The Truth never changes.

And btw, how can you not like stained glass, big cathedrals, and liturgical music?