Excommunication for Pro-choice believers

[Ma.Eugenia]

In my country, the issue of contraception, abortion, population control is coming to the fore and are now making headlines.

The clash of ideas of pro-choice and pro-life seems imminent.as our president, who seems to be pro-choice, that is, he is open to allowing the teaching / promoting of artificial conraception to a wider population, possibly, nationwide.

In one news article, a bishop was quoted that excommunication of the president, if he continues his programs promoting artificial contraception, was a possibility.

In my experience, I have friends who are pro-choice but say they are regular, church-going Catholic as well. They say they follow their conscience and it should be respected.

My sister was told by her good friend that she did not agree with my sister bringing current issues on artificial contraception to their church (Catholic) because their parish was made of simple people…I suppose what her friend wanted was s just to keep quiet on the issue, in case that it might offend those who were pro-choice.

I have 4 questions:

1. Can a Catholic be pro-choice at the same time by way of freedom of conscience?
2. Can a Catholic receive communion if he/she is pro-choice?
3. Is it a sin to want status quo…that is, keep quiet on pro-life issues so those who think otherwise will not be offended?..for peace in the community.
4. Why is excommunication a possibility in the case of our president?

 

[bkayw]

No, no, yes and formal excommunication seems to be reserved for public displays that run contrary to Catholic doctrine.

It’s disturbing to watch your country fall into the same deep, dark and foul pit that the U.S. has yet to climb out of.

Women in the U.S., to date, have killed 50,000,000 children since aborion was made legal.

Being “pro-choice” is the mental murder of a child prior to the physical act being committed.

 

[Willy_Jose]

In my country, the issue of contraception, abortion, population control is coming to the fore and are now making headlines.

The clash of ideas of pro-choice and pro-life seems imminent.as our president, who seems to be pro-choice, that is, he is open to allowing the teaching / promoting of artificial conraception to a wider population, possibly, nationwide…

Hello kabayan,
I also feel sad for the recent developments in our country.
Here are my two centavos.

1. Can a Catholic be pro-choice at the same time by way of freedom of conscience?*

A Catholic is under obligation to always follow one’s conscience, but we must be very careful. There is such a thing as an erroneous conscience, and one can be culpable for a poorly-formed conscience. (CCC 1792: Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”,)

2. Can a Catholic receive communion if he/she is pro-choice?

Any Catholic in a state of mortal sin may not receive communion. If being pro-choice amounts to having committed a mortal sin without having repented (eg, having an abortion; using an abortifacient drug…) , then he/she may not receive communion.

3. Is it a sin to want status quo…that is, keep quiet on pro-life issues so those who think otherwise will not be offended?..for peace in the community.

Lay people also have a responsibility in the priestly ministry of Christ, in a way that is appropriate for lay people. We also have a duty to evangelize. We may commit a sin of omission if we are in a position to correct other people’s errors but refuse to do so. In all these things we must be charitable at all times.

4. Why is excommunication a possibility in the case of our president?

There are some cases where automatic excommunication is effected, like those procuring an abortion or directly assisting in an abortion, with full knowledge and consent.
At any rate, CBCP president Bishop Nereo Odchimar has already clarified that he never threatened President Aquino with excommunication.
See link here cbcpnews.com/?q=node/13291

Ipagdasal natin ang ating bayan,
-WillyJ

randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/10/aquino-stands-vague-in-his-population.html
randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/10/rh-bill-ticked-off.html

 

[lutherlic]

In my country, the issue of contraception, abortion, population control is coming to the fore and are now making headlines.

The clash of ideas of pro-choice and pro-life seems imminent.as our president, who seems to be pro-choice, that is, he is open to allowing the teaching / promoting of artificial conraception to a wider population, possibly, nationwide.

In one news article, a bishop was quoted that excommunication of the president, if he continues his programs promoting artificial contraception, was a possibility.

In my experience, I have friends who are pro-choice but say they are regular, church-going Catholic as well. They say they follow their conscience and it should be respected.

My sister was told by her good friend that she did not agree with my sister bringing current issues on artificial contraception to their church (Catholic) because their parish was made of simple people…I suppose what her friend wanted was s just to keep quiet on the issue, in case that it might offend those who were pro-choice.

I have 4 questions:

1. Can a Catholic be pro-choice at the same time by way of freedom of conscience?
2. Can a Catholic receive communion if he/she is pro-choice?
3. Is it a sin to want status quo…that is, keep quiet on pro-life issues so those who think otherwise will not be offended?..for peace in the community.
4. Why is excommunication a possibility in the case of our president?

1. The Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil as it is the killing of an innocent person. I do not see how this could be a matter of conscience. It is either a problem of catechesis or outright rejection of Church teaching.
2. Rewording, “Can a Catholic receive communion if he/she is in favor of unrestricted murder, limited only by the murderer’s choice to kill or not?”

The question is if this puts a person in a state of mortal sin. Honestly, I don’t know if it rises to that level if this is just the private thoughts of a person and the person takes no action on it.

However, if the person expresses this to others, I would say yes for sure at that point as they are promoting a grave sin. Also, if they vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-choice one, I would say definitely as they are now complicit in the murder of innocent life.

1. As Willy Jose noted, it may be a sin of omission and a grave one at that considering the consequences.
2. I don’t know any of the background of the situation in your country. I must admit that I do not understand how Catholics in positions of great authority can act in open defiance of clear Church teachings and still be held in good standing. It seems to me that great harm is done to them and the faithful by not excommunicating them if they refuse to amend their ways. Regardless, it is their bishop’s decision to make.

 

[Roy5]

There is a position that some of us take, which probably is condemned by both sides. Let me outline it briefly.

 Generally, abortion is bad. 

 However, there can be special situations in which it may be the lesser of evils. Let me give two illustrations from cases known to me.

 A set of parents came to their priest. They had a downs syndrome young adult who had been gang raped - more than once - at a group home where supervision was lacking. The girl became pregnant. The parents were concerned for many reasons, of course. First, their daughter was not prepared to cope with a baby, and even enduring a pregnancy would be traumatic or more. Second, the grandmother of the baby might have taken the baby but she had developed MS and was hardly able to take care of herself adequately. Third, the girl's parents felt that an adoption would be almost impossible since both parents had severely limited mental potential. Anyway, the priest scolded them for even considering an abortion. 

 The upshot? An abortion was performed after two months, the girl was removed o a different group home, etc. When the mother of the pregnant girl confessed to her priest, she was sharply denounced. The couple decided to become Episcopalian.

  A second scenario. A woman was the mother of six young children. She and her husband faithfully used the approved method of birth control, but she became pregnant again. She had had pregnancy problems before, and the doctor (and other medical personnel) had warned her that the birth of another child would very likely result in her death and the death of the baby. The couple went to their priest who told them to go through with the pregnancy and trust God.

  However, the husband strongly favored a medical abortion. He argued that her death would leave him a widower and, much more important, six (and possibly seven) motherless children - young children. They consulted the Protestant minister of some close friends who refused to advise them medically except to say that if they did have an abortion, under those circumstances, God surely would understand. They finally decided on a medical abortion. Then, they began to attend the Protestant church with their friends where they could feel comfortable rather than as miserable sinners.

  Now, in both cases, was an abortion absolutely verboten? If they had remained in the church should they have been excommunicated? Etc.

 

[Willy_Jose]

There is a position that some of us take, which probably is condemned by both sides. Let me outline it briefly.

 Generally, abortion is bad. 

 However, there can be special situations in which it may be the lesser of evils. Let me give two illustrations from cases known to me...

Under Catholic moral theology, there is such a thing as intrinsic evil. Murder and abortion fall into such a category. Irrespective of circumstances, it is a grave sin and there are no exceptions.

The two situations you outlined do not make a case for an exception, neither do we consider abortion to be a ‘lesser evil’ that is preferable and excusable under those circumstances. Indeed the circumstances are tragic in those two instances, and we should empathize, assist and counsel people under those circumstances, but not to the point of approving an abortion for them. In the first theoretical example, this operates under the principle that the unborn child is a separate human entity, totally innocent of the crime of rape. The condition of the mother who has a psychological condition may not justify an abortion. Bottom line, what both the mother and child needs is support and love, not abortion.

The second case is quite difficult too, but could be more hypothetical than realistic, given today’s advances in the field of medicine and the available expertise for maternal health. Given the case, the mother and the child should be given adequate medical attention with utmost care, and equally cared for.

At any rate, both mothers deserve support, charity and no condemnation. Foremost, we should lead them to the love of Christ, the truth.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
3. Is it a sin to want status quo…that is, keep quiet on pro-life issues so those who think otherwise will not be offended?..for peace in the community…

You can always pray . No one can stop you praying for these people .

As for peace in the community - I think that is more of an illusion than a reality. A deacon friend of mine told me there is a direct correlation between divorces among Catholics and the practice of contraception.

For simple people - take it from a simple person, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta - **" The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion…Because if a mother can kill her own child- what is left for me to kill you and you kill me- there is nothing between." **

 

[Elizabeth502]

The phrase “being pro-choice” is too vague to classify. If it means having doubts about the Church’s position (internally struggling with it), then is not a mortal sin. If it means counseling others to engage in activity the Church has forbidden, or engaging in public advocacy of that position, then it arises to the level of “cooperation,” which is defined by the Church as being sinful. Obviously a third level of being “pro-choice” could be participating in the abortion of another, which is a heavier level of sin. Etc.

There are Catholics who differ from official Church positions on many things – such as female ordination, mandatory celibacy, contraception. Such people often register their opinions (on message boards, in print media, etc.) – that they “wish the Church would change its position on _____,” but that does mean that such people are engaging in active opposition (sabotage) – such as participating in a female ordination. They are registering regret over an official position (as opposed to denying the position), or they are questioning the reasons for the position (as opposed to challenging it directly). Fr. Corapi often brings this up in his talks: that fidelity does not require unquestioning embrace of everything taught, but that “just doing it” is sufficient.

Perhaps only the OP’s relative would know which category she can place herself in.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Thanks everyone for your insights. (To Willy Jose…hello kababayan too…)

It really is saddening that my country is in the midst of this controversy.

Its sad to see some Catholics proclaiming themselves pro-choice without making the effort to understand why the church stands solidly firm against most unpopular issue of contraception and abortion.

I once told a friend…“You know, these contraceptives can kill a life.”

My friend argued (civilly…it was a friendly talk) that natual methods were difficult to do…just look at the poor families with many children…there is no money to feed them…no jobs…etc…

As if her arguments were enough to negate what I had just said…“There is a possibility that a life can be destroyed in using these artificial methods.”

To the pro-choice Catholics I know, they think that controlling fertility should be easy to do and practical. They don’t want to bother finding out the reason why the Church says what it says if it means some form of difficulty for them.

The problem is also with the clergy and the perceived lack of united stand in some Catholic quarters. I think, perhaps, more education on this issue for the clergy will help them speak with more confidence on the issue. After all, most of our priests have no medical related background and may be uncomfortable speaking out on an issue they are not experts on.

It was so sad that the spokesman of our president said that he (our president) is above all religion and is following conscience.

I sometimes wonder if he even bothered to really study indepth why the church he says he belongs to teaches what it teaches.

Did he ever ask himself, “When does life begin?” or “Can these contraceptives possibly act agaisnt life.”…as he was forming his conscience to act on it?

Unfortunately, his conscience and actions based on it is the one that will determine the fate of countless unborn Filipino lives.

I am hoping that he is not determinedly blinding himself from knowing the truth for the dollars that have been promised us by other pro-choice governmennts. That would be worst!

I believe that Mama Mary will not abandon us Filipinos as she was given to all of us as our spiritual Mother. We have to believe, have faith and trust in God’s goodness and love for us. God’s love and mercy is infinitely more powerful than any dollars or promises in exchange for policies and laws that goes against life.

Mama Mary, we seek refuge in your Immaculate Heart…bringing with us, those who do not believe and trust God that He will take care of us if we allow Him to decide the number of children in our families …those who do not understand these issues are more than an economic ones, but are also moral and ethical issues…those who do not want to be bothered by controversy or difficulty and are easily swayed to go against the Church teachings …those who are in the position in our government to act on these Life issues to have understanding of the Church’s position and act according to what is truly good for our people. Please pray that no law will pass that will go against life at any stage of development. Please pray for us, your Fiilpino children.

I ask through the intercession also of St. Paul, who from being anti-Christian, became an ardent defender of the faith…and St.Mary Magdalene, who repented her sins and changed her life for love of God. Please pray for us.

President Cory…please pray for your son and our country…that he will not change what is beautifully imbedded in the 1987 constitution that you yourself approved during your presidency, upholding the sanctity of family life and the protection of the mother and the life of the unborn child from conception. Please pray with Mama Mary, Papa Joseph and all the angels and saints in heaven.

Please Lord, have mercy on our country. Amen.

 

[Newbie2]

There is a position that some of us take, which probably is condemned by both sides. Let me outline it briefly.

 Generally, abortion is bad. 

 However, there can be special situations in which it may be the lesser of evils. Let me give two illustrations from cases known to me.

 A set of parents came to their priest. They had a downs syndrome young adult who had been gang raped - more than once - at a group home where supervision was lacking. The girl became pregnant. The parents were concerned for many reasons, of course. First, their daughter was not prepared to cope with a baby, and even enduring a pregnancy would be traumatic or more. Second, the grandmother of the baby might have taken the baby but she had developed MS and was hardly able to take care of herself adequately. Third, the girl's parents felt that an adoption would be almost impossible since both parents had severely limited mental potential. Anyway, the priest scolded them for even considering an abortion. 

 The upshot? An abortion was performed after two months, the girl was removed o a different group home, etc. When the mother of the pregnant girl confessed to her priest, she was sharply denounced. The couple decided to become Episcopalian.

Well, let’s see…perhaps another option…adoption?? No, let’s just kill the baby.

  A second scenario. A woman was the mother of six young children. She and her husband faithfully used the approved method of birth control, but she became pregnant again. She had had pregnancy problems before, and the doctor (and other medical personnel) had warned her that the birth of another child would very likely result in her death and the death of the baby. The couple went to their priest who told them to go through with the pregnancy and trust God.

  However, the husband strongly favored a medical abortion. He argued that her death would leave him a widower and, much more important, six (and possibly seven) motherless children - young children. They consulted the Protestant minister of some close friends who refused to advise them medically except to say that if they did have an abortion, under those circumstances, God surely would understand. They finally decided on a medical abortion. Then, they began to attend the Protestant church with their friends where they could feel comfortable rather than as miserable sinners.

Yeah, God would “understand” how it was OK for them to destroy his creation. Do you realize how bizarre this sounds??

“Feel comfortable”. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Moral theology is all about “feeling comfortable” with one’s own sin. Why, God would not want us to feel uncomfortable for any reason, would he now.

  Now, in both cases, was an abortion absolutely verboten? If they had remained in the church should they have been excommunicated? Etc.

Once one goes down that path of relativity and rationalization, it’s easy to justify nearly any sin.

 

[lutherlic]

The phrase “being pro-choice” is too vague to classify. If it means having doubts about the Church’s position (internally struggling with it), then is not a mortal sin. If it means counseling others to engage in activity the Church has forbidden, or engaging in public advocacy of that position, then it arises to the level of “cooperation,” which is defined by the Church as being sinful. Obviously a third level of being “pro-choice” could be participating in the abortion of another, which is a heavier level of sin. Etc.

There are Catholics who differ from official Church positions on many things – such as female ordination, mandatory celibacy, contraception. Such people often register their opinions (on message boards, in print media, etc.) – that they “wish the Church would change its position on _____,” but that does mean that such people are engaging in active opposition (sabotage) – such as participating in a female ordination. They are registering regret over an official position (as opposed to denying the position), or they are questioning the reasons for the position (as opposed to challenging it directly). Fr. Corapi often brings this up in his talks: that fidelity does not require unquestioning embrace of everything taught, but that “just doing it” is sufficient.

Perhaps only the OP’s relative would know which category she can place herself in.

Elizabeth, I believe that you are lumping too many things together here.

People who say “I wish the Church would soften it’s position on the requirement for priest celibacy” are discussing a discipline. It is permissible for faithful Catholics to have personal opinions that differ as you describe. While unlikely, discipline could change. We must only be obedient to it.

Doctrines such as a male only priesthood can not be changed. Offering a viewpoint that differs from Church teaching could serve no purpose than to undermine another person’s faith. These are not “official positions” but known truth.

It is one thing for a person to say “I don’t understand why the Church ordains only men.” In that statement one is only saying that they need to study the reasons and learn more. Possibly they are asking for help or pointers to information.

In my experience so far, that is not the case. Most who start out with a statement like that soon reveal that they are indeed not interested in learning. Rather, they wish to share with you all of their reasons that form their misinformed opinion. They are in effect, lobbying you to build dissent and pressure the Church – even if that is not always their conscience intent.

I also suspect that, far more often than not, when people express their opinions on the sufficiency of NFP that they are probably using artificial birth control. When they express doubts on the need to attend Mass every Sunday that they do not. When they argue extreme circumstances to “justify” abortion, they would personally abort in lesser circumstances. When they (wrongly - see Father Corapi’s comments) that a pro-choice candidate may still be a better choice than a pro-life one, they intend to become complicit in abortion through their vote.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is one thing for a person to say “I don’t understand why the Church ordains only men.” In that statement one is only saying that they need to study the reasons and learn more. Possibly they are asking for help or pointers to information.

In my experience so far, that is not the case. Most who start out with a statement like that soon reveal that they are indeed not interested in learning. Rather, they wish to share with you all of their reasons that form their misinformed opinion. They are in effect, lobbying you to build dissent and pressure the Church – even if that is not always their conscience intent.

I also suspect that, far more often than not, when people express their opinions on the sufficiency of NFP that they are probably using artificial birth control. When they express doubts on the need to attend Mass every Sunday that they do not. .

I’m sure you meant well. I do know the difference between discipline and doctrine, and which issues are covered by which.

No, people are not always just asking for information when they express “I don’t understand why.” Nor, if it is not that, is it always the reverse. (“Lobbying for dissent.”) It’s often expressing frustration, disappointment, and honest concerns of conscience or doctrinal and practical inconsistencies. Just because “in your experience” you have noticed trends in certain areas does not mean that any of us can universalize those private experiences of yours. My private experiences with such comments are different, and quite varied. Also, I don’t “trend” people because I leave that up to the social networking sites and applications.

I’m well acquainted with the comments of Fr. John Corapi, of whom I am overall quite a fan, attempting to listen to him 2-3 times a day on the weekends, and once to twice a day on weekdays. I know precisely how he means what he says when he talks about disagreement with doctrine or dogma and the difference between an enthusiastic advocate and interpreter, vs. being a reluctant follower, and that the latter is acceptable.

 

[Roy5]

A few more words to add to me earlier posting.

  I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage, which has a lot to do with my effort to bridge the two traditions. The animosity that I find still lurking troubles me. Some posters on CAF seem to regard Protestantism as 'the great Satan'! Actually, I see it mainly as a reform movement, which - unlike various monastic orders - developed outside the church. Why? Various factors, of course, but one of them was the authoritarian dogmatic approach of the church. Perhaps Luther would have remained in the church had he not been trounced on with such fury. He held on to many traditional teachings of the church. He had the courage or the arrogance (depending on your view) to confront abuses in the church, and especially the corruption that had invaded the complex arena of indulgences.

 But back to abortion. As stated already, I am basically agsinst it, but there are exceptions. I am basically against the death penalty, but now and then the crime is so heinous and the evidence so certain that I am inclined to make an exception - at least emotionally. I am basically against war, with enormous respect for the 'peace churches' like the Quakers and Mennonites, and worry that the 'military-industrial complex' plus neocons can push for military action (and mass killing) when diplomacy has not been thoroughly investigated as an option. Yet, there have been wars that probably had to be fought - against Hitler, for example, and after Pearl Harbor. Untold millions of innocent people, however, were slaughtered during and because of World War II. Look at the slaughter of Protestants and Catholics by co-religionists during the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. Shameful, yet still justified by some, even today. When the Protestants were slaughtered in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Pope ordered a special Te Deum Mass to celebrate. Etc. So we Christians need to exhibit some humility when it comes to talking about taking innocent life. We've committed our share of mayhem and carnage over the centuries - and, miserabile dictu, even in the name of God!

  In the same vein, I believe that there are those rare situations when abortion may be acceptable, as in the two cases I mentioned. One reason I accept this 'lesser evil' is because if the fetus has a soul at conception (debated even by Church Fathers, such as Augustine, who as I recall stated that the soul entered the embryo at two months), that soul certainly goes to heaven. Maybe better off than millions of living humans are or have been over the centuries. Not a powerful argument, perhaps, but it provides some comfort for me when I think of all the abortions performed that should not be as well as those few which just may be justified

  Anyway, rather than imperil the life of a mother of six young children (plus the seventh in the womb) I would let the mother make that difficult decision. I certainly would not treat her as a criminal if she chose to abort the seventh to make certain that she could remain the loving mother of the other six and the loving spouse of their father. She will experience enough grief without the church saddling her with enormous guilt. Compassion includes compassion for those who are caught in such painful situations. As I recall, Jesus had something to say about judging, and he invited those without sin to cast the first stone.

  We should all work to make abortion as rare as possible. In this we can work together to save babies and glorify God.  

  I'm well aware that some will countenance no exceptions. But that is where honest disagreement exists. I respect the absolutists, but have decided reluctantly and over the years that, while not pro-choice, there can be circumstances where the decision has to be left up to those facing special situations and when no solution is a good one but a decision/choice has to be made. 

  God bless and guide and sustain and comfort all those who have and/or are confronting such a decision/choice. God's love is for you as for the rest of us.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Roy5,

I can see the struggle you are having with respect to abortion and the pain and tragedy that goes with the exceptions you mentioned. Let me tell you upfront that there are not a few people who share your sentiments, even among Catholics. I only state that as a matter of fact.

Anyway, there are Catholic teachings which are definitive and there are some which are not. Catholics groom themselves with obedience either way, for we respect our 2000++ years of tradition. With regards to the death penalty, there is no absolute prohibition
against it, although our Catechism tends to strongly oppose it. Catholics are free to debate it either way, without running afoul of the Magesterium. Same goes with war, for there is also the concept of a just war in Catholic social doctrine.The same does not hold true for abortion. Here we have such a thing as the universal magesterium having defined it as a “non-negotiable” – the respect for life in all its stages is paramount in Catholic moral theology. Deliberate killing, especially when the victim is innocent and defenseless, is grave matter. Thou shall not kill. You might want to make a distinction against killing in self-defense, or killing in war when one is under duress, inasmuch as you mentioned the wars throughout history.

We also have a firm teaching that one may not do evil to justify a good that may come out of it. The end does not justify the means. We also have to ask ourselves if we are in a position to determine with certainty the future bleak prospects of a poor mother in dire conditions and her child. We have to think again…and never underestimate the goodness of persons around, or of providential fortune when God’s graces works. Meanwhile, the
choice to abort is here and now…You say “We should all work to make abortion as rare as possible. In this we can work together to save babies and glorify God.” – I agree. You also remember that episode when Jesus told the people : anyone without sin, cast the first stone. You see, that episode ended with Jesus telling the adulterous woman: go and sin no more.

And Roy…Protestantism came out of Catholicism, it did not develop outside the Church independently.

Finally, I want to share with you an anecdote here. I can’t say whether it is factual, but it does give a good food for thought. God bless you too.

A professor in a college ethics class presented his students with a problem. He said, “A man has syphilis and his wife has tuberculosis. They have had four children: one has died, the other three have what is considered to be a terminal illness. The mother is pregnant. What do you recommend?” After a spirited discussion, the majority of the class voted that she should abort the child. “Fine,” said the professor. “You’ve just killed Beethoven.”

 

[Miriam1947]

Roy5,

A professor in a college ethics class presented his students with a problem. He said, “A man has syphilis and his wife has tuberculosis. They have had four children: one has died, the other three have what is considered to be a terminal illness. The mother is pregnant. What do you recommend?” After a spirited discussion, the majority of the class voted that she should abort the child. “Fine,” said the professor. “You’ve just killed Beethoven.”

Wow, great!

 

[Roy5]

WillyJose

Thank you for your response and its civil tone. I really shouldn't get into these discussions, because each requires a book or more of dialogue, but a couple quick points.

 1. I was in Prague awhile back and saw the statue of Jan Hus ib a main square there. He was burned at the stake for his 'heresy'. "Ends justify the means." Let me tell you a brief story re my Mom's ancestral family. They were Belgians, Catholics, when one of them embraced Calvinism. He received a summons to appear before the Ghent City Court (or whatever it was called). Anyway, he knew this meant he was going to be accused of heresy and probably executed. So he fled with his family to France that very night. When the Edict of Nantes was rescinded and Calvinism was no longer legal there, the family fled to England. There they joined the Puritans and his grandson immigrated to New England in 1639. I tell you this story so that you will understand why there has been a residual suspicion of Catholicism among many Protestants because of such family stories as theirs. Fortunately, Vatican II changed much of this, but I can detect among some posters here on CAF a desire to return to the former fierce hostility toward Protestantism that existed for 400 years prior to John XXIII, my favorite Pope. (My paternal side was Catholic, as I indicated already - French-Canadian. An ancestral cousin was Archbishop of Quebec!) 

 Remember what that great doctor of the church, Aquinas, wrote. The church, he said, should not execute heretics. Instead, they should deliver heretics over to the civil authorities who then should execute them!

 2. Means and ends. A tough issue sometimes. Should US spies live double (dishonest) lives to spy on terrorists cells? I think so. Now, the medieval church wanted to stamp out the Albigensians. Was it okay to slaughter them to get rid of them? I was in Dresden some years ago. Were the Allies right to bomb that city to smithereens, though it was crowded with refugees fleeing the Russians, to break the German spirit and bring the war to a quicker conclusion? This means and ends is tricky. I occasionally would tell my wife (I am a widower) that I liked a dress she had bought because I didn't want to disappoint her or hurt her by telling her what I really thought. Was this lying wrong? Etc.

3. Protestantism came out of Catholicism. Yes, of course. The Reformation, from a Protestant viewpoint, was an attempt to reform the Catholic Church. No argument there. The issue remains: is the Catholic Church the one true church and its magisterium (Papacy etc) infallible when it comes to matters of doctrine and morals? I have trouble with that one. I confess to a strong desire to evaluate, weigh, ponder, question, and otherwise think for myself. I presume I don't have the mental temperament to follow any one church or preacher or even book. There is much in the Bible that I seriously doubt, For example, did God really order Joshua to murder every inhabitant of Jericho (save a prostitute and her family) once the walls came tumbling down? Sorry, the God I believe in would never issue such an order. Nor would he tell Saul to annihilate every Amalekite. Hitler would do that, but not Christ who said 'blessed are the peacemakers' and even challenged us to 'love our enemies;.

 All for now. Godspeed.

 

[Newbie2]

.
But back to abortion. As stated already, I am basically agsinst it, but there are exceptions. I am basically against the death penalty, but now and then the crime is so heinous and the evidence so certain that I am inclined to make an exception - at least emotionally. I am basically against war, with enormous respect for the ‘peace churches’ like the Quakers and Mennonites, and worry that the ‘military-industrial complex’ plus neocons can push for military action (and mass killing) when diplomacy has not been thoroughly investigated as an option. Yet, there have been wars that probably had to be fought - against Hitler, for example, and after Pearl Harbor. Untold millions of innocent people, however, were slaughtered during and because of World War II. Look at the slaughter of Protestants and Catholics by co-religionists during the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. Shameful, yet still justified by some, even today. When the Protestants were slaughtered in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Pope ordered a special Te Deum Mass to celebrate. Etc. So we Christians need to exhibit some humility when it comes to talking about taking innocent life. We’ve committed our share of mayhem and carnage over the centuries - and, miserabile dictu, even in the name of God!

OK, an entire paragraph on “But back to abortion” with not one single mention of abortion…just discussion on other bad things that have happened over the centuries. Way to deflect.

  In the same vein, I believe that there are those rare situations when abortion may be acceptable, as in the two cases I mentioned. One reason I accept this 'lesser evil' is because if the fetus has a soul at conception (debated even by Church Fathers, such as Augustine, who as I recall stated that the soul entered the embryo at two months), that soul certainly goes to heaven. Maybe better off than millions of living humans are or have been over the centuries. Not a powerful argument, perhaps, but it provides some comfort for me when I think of all the abortions performed that should not be as well as those few which just may be justified

I’m glad you find some comfort in the murder of an innocent soul.

  Anyway, rather than imperil the life of a mother of six young children (plus the seventh in the womb) I would let the mother make that difficult decision. I certainly would not treat her as a criminal if she chose to abort the seventh to make certain that she could remain the loving mother of the other six and the loving spouse of their father. She will experience enough grief without the church saddling her with enormous guilt. Compassion includes compassion for those who are caught in such painful situations. As I recall, Jesus had something to say about judging, and he invited those without sin to cast the first stone.

…and he said, go and sin no more.

  We should all work to make abortion as rare as possible. In this we can work together to save babies and glorify God.

But we still can slaughter a few, right? As long as we can justify feeling good about them going to heaven. Pulleeze.

  I'm well aware that some will countenance no exceptions. But that is where honest disagreement exists. I respect the absolutists, but have decided reluctantly and over the years that, while not pro-choice, there can be circumstances where the decision has to be left up to those facing special situations and when no solution is a good one but a decision/choice has to be made.

The solution is always left with them.

But let me ask, where does your “honest disagreement” draw the line? If you can find such exceptions, I’m sure you can find more…and more…and eventually, using such “it’s OK and I can justify it as long as I feel good about the baby’s soul going to heaven” theology gets us back to a place where we can pretty much justify an abortion for any reason.

 2. Means and ends. A tough issue sometimes. Should US spies live double (dishonest) lives to spy on terrorists cells? I think so. Now, the medieval church wanted to stamp out the Albigensians. Was it okay to slaughter them to get rid of them? I was in Dresden some years ago. Were the Allies right to bomb that city to smithereens, though it was crowded with refugees fleeing the Russians, to break the German spirit and bring the war to a quicker conclusion? This means and ends is tricky. I occasionally would tell my wife (I am a widower) that I liked a dress she had bought because I didn't want to disappoint her or hurt her by telling her what I really thought. Was this lying wrong? Etc.

The “means and ends is tricky” only for a relativist.

 

[Rence]

The phrase “being pro-choice” is too vague to classify. If it means having doubts about the Church’s position (internally struggling with it), then is not a mortal sin. If it means counseling others to engage in activity the Church has forbidden, or engaging in public advocacy of that position, then it arises to the level of “cooperation,” which is defined by the Church as being sinful. Obviously a third level of being “pro-choice” could be participating in the abortion of another, which is a heavier level of sin. Etc.

There are Catholics who differ from official Church positions on many things – such as female ordination, mandatory celibacy, contraception. Such people often register their opinions (on message boards, in print media, etc.) – that they “wish the Church would change its position on _____,” but that does mean that such people are engaging in active opposition (sabotage) – such as participating in a female ordination. They are registering regret over an official position (as opposed to denying the position), or they are questioning the reasons for the position (as opposed to challenging it directly). Fr. Corapi often brings this up in his talks: that fidelity does not require unquestioning embrace of everything taught, but that “just doing it” is sufficient.

Perhaps only the OP’s relative would know which category she can place herself in.

Thank you Elizabeth. I talked to two priests at length about my feelings about abortion, especially in difficult cases. They both told me that I was not sinning (nor was I not in communion with the Church) for disagreeing with the Church’s position, or by continuing to sort it out. I don’t have to agree with the Church’s rules, but I do have to follow them. But they both said that it would be sinful if I was actually doing something to support abortion (such as having an abortion, participating in an abortion, helping someone to get an abortion, counseling someone to get an abortion, etc.) Which I don’t do. So being pro-choice in and of itself is not enough to get me in trouble. So… yes one can be pro-choice and be Catholic.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Roy5,
Those are a bit off-topic, but anyway…

1. What happened to your ancestor was certainly deplorable and unjust but we should look at the history of religious persecution as a whole, put it in context,and try to learn from it. Catholics do not claim that its followers throughout history were of impeccable character, and neither can any religion for that matter. Catholics persecuted Protestants in some areas. We cannot deny that Protestants likewise prosecuted Catholics, and a keen investigation should make you compare the extent and intensity of the Protestant-driven persecutions in comparison. Also, in the early years, Lutherans persecuted Calvinists and vise versa. Catholics also joined the fray to a certain extent, yes. Catholics persecuted Huguenots and vise versa. The list goes on. We cannot zero in one one particular religion and say one has a monopoly of persecution. Just recently, modern-day Lutherans formally apologized for their past persecution of the Anabaptists. In all these, I am quite certain that not any one doctrine formally encouraged persecution of other faiths. It was a period in time where the religions were subsumed by the state, to disastrous effects. The people allowed themselves to be consumed by a defective medieval culture. The persecutioners thought they were doing their religion a service, but in hindsight, we now see their folly. We should all make progress from that and learn objectively, rather than be weighted down in our present judgment from what happened in the past.
2. You say : “A tough issue sometimes”. You are having problems with the finer points of moral theology. That is no surprise, considering that most people do not have the capability, resources nor the inclination to do a very deep and thorough study of moral ethics. Just think of this: anyone reading your posts would easily come to a conclusion that you are a highly educated, intelligent person, and yet you find it tough resolving means and ends. Now, what about the majority of truth seekers who are not as gifted as you? How do they sort out these complexities and live a life in accordance with the way (and the truth and the life)? Christ will never leave them out. I would say we are not the first to grapple with these issues, and then I would begin to think of the keys that was handed down to Peter, and Jesus’ promise of the Paraclete that will be with His Church throughout – till the end of days. Again, food for thought.
3. I tell you our mind would explode if we try to rationalize everything that is written in the bible by our limited selves. Even if we use our 21st century lens, it is woefully inadequate. You see, God’s intelligibility is too much for the human mind to comprehend (your thoughts are not My thoughts), in the same way that the sun is too bright for
   the human eye to look directly at.

“Is the Catholic Church the one true church and its magisterium (Papacy etc) infallible when it comes to matters of doctrine and morals? I have trouble with that one.”

Why, is there any other plausible candidate? I do not want to sound arrogant, but forgive me if I did.

Here I have a quote for you, courtesy of Sherlock Holmes:

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.

 

[lutherlic]

I’m sure you meant well. I do know the difference between discipline and doctrine, and which issues are covered by which.

No, people are not always just asking for information when they express “I don’t understand why.” Nor, if it is not that, is it always the reverse. (“Lobbying for dissent.”) It’s often expressing frustration, disappointment, and honest concerns of conscience or doctrinal and practical inconsistencies. Just because “in your experience” you have noticed trends in certain areas does not mean that any of us can universalize those private experiences of yours. My private experiences with such comments are different, and quite varied. Also, I don’t “trend” people because I leave that up to the social networking sites and applications.

I’m well acquainted with the comments of Fr. John Corapi, of whom I am overall quite a fan, attempting to listen to him 2-3 times a day on the weekends, and once to twice a day on weekdays. I know precisely how he means what he says when he talks about disagreement with doctrine or dogma and the difference between an enthusiastic advocate and interpreter, vs. being a reluctant follower, and that the latter is acceptable.

OK, our experiences differ or at least our interpretations of what we observe. I see, as you do, “frustration, disappointment, and honest concerns of conscience” but ask what exactly is the purpose of expressing that? I have never seen it expressed as a request to learn but rather as statement of position contrary to the Church and therefore as a rejection of the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

I am not sure what you mean by “doctrinal and practical inconsistencies.”

One final question - how do you view voting for or otherwise supporting a pro-choice politician over a pro-life one?