Have I committed a mortal sin? On pro-abortion politicians

[Humupower]

Unfortunately, it appears that your professor advanced the bogus seamless garment theory. The church most certainly does not support this. No issue our combination of issues trumps abortion. Not higher welfare spending, not tighter environmental policies, not higher taxes on the rich, , not arguments over the proper funding of Medicare, Social Security, ADC, food stamps, etc. etc. etc. As Archbishop Chaput so eloquently put in the quote I posted earlier without right to life all other rights are meaningless. A child denied the right to has little care for what the proper funding for WIC programs is, affordable day care means nothing to this child nor does extended unemployment benefits or “fair” taxation of the rich

I am not advocating for abortion in any way shape or form. What I am saying is that it is more important to change society in a way that promotes justice and hope than strictly and legalistically denying abortion. I think abortion is a moral abomination in the vast majority of cases. No rational, moral person would get an abortion(other than perhaps the rare health related reasons) if they were properly educated and morally formed. Abortion comes about because people are not educated enough to make moral and restrained use of their sexuality and because once pregnant they feel that there is no hope of a favorable outcome to their situation.

It’s not so cut and dry as saying I voted republican, I did my good deed to prevent abortions, when doing so does not in any other way lead to a society where life is valued. And no, I’m not saying don’t vote republican or anything like that. I am saying look at the entire picture of how life is treated from conception to natural death. I have seen so many people who basically think abortion is the only important social issue, and let politicians get away with murder in just about every other playing field just because they are pro-life. Even if it is the most important issue, it is dangerous to get tunnel vision.

It will probably never happen, but it would greatly benefit the country to have people who would be willing to stand up for life instead of playing partisan games. We should not have to accept an “either/or” mentality in politics. But as voters, we have been taught that we have a two party system, you can be on one side or the other…
But there is no reason that it should be that way when both sides have deep flaws.

 

[jrgiancola]

First, the United States Constitution does not recognize unborn persons as having any rights at all.

Second, Roe v. Wade and its progeny determined that abortion falls within the protection of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights to privacy from government interference in the private lives of American citizens.

However, Roe and its progeny have added some protection for the unborn that the Constitution does not contain: the states, NOT the fetus, have the right to restrict abortion once the fetus attains the age of viability (can exist outside the mother’s uterus), believing that the states have an interest in protecting potential citizens.

Per the Constitution, the unborn are not even considered persons; the Supreme Court has given the states the right to protect their lives once they can live outside the womb.

Not all religions are totally against abortion:

A diversity of views exists within the U.S. and Canada concerning abortion access. Many pro-life and pro-choice groups have been organized with opposing goals. Surprisingly, they agree on a few very important points:
They both want to see the abortion rate decline.
In those cases where they feel that an abortion is acceptable, they are both concerned that it present a minimal health risk to the woman.
Once human personhood is attained by the embryo or fetus, both pro-life and pro-choice supporters are concerned that his/her life be preserved, except in very unusual circumstances.

Unfortunately, the two sides cannot agree on when personhood is attained. Most pro-life groups believe it happens at conception and are thus generally opposed to all elective abortions. Pro-choice groups typically believe that it happens later in gestation or at birth, and are thus generally supportive of a woman’s access to affordable, safe, elective abortions. (Continued in next post)

 

[jrgiancola]

Pro-choice groups:

Liberal and some mainline denominations: In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 

   American Baptist Churches-USA 
   American Ethical Union,
American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
American Jewish Committee,
American Jewish Congress,
Central Conference of American Rabbis,
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
    Council of Jewish Federations,
    Episcopal Church (USA),
    Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
Na'Amat USA,
National Council of Jewish Women,
    Orthodox Christian Church to save the life of the mother,
Presbyterian Church (USA),
    Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, 
    Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
   Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Unitarian Universalist Association,
United Church of Christ,
United Methodist Church,
United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.

Pro-life groups:
Conservative and some mainline denominations: These are found in most religions, and are generally opposed to abortions. They have adopted a range of policies:
Some are unalterably opposed to all abortions, from conception to birth, for any reason;
Some would allow abortion only to save the woman’s life;
Some would permit abortion to save her life or when pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

There are approximately 1,000 denominations in North America who take a pro-life stand and oppose abortion access. The largest of these are:

   The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian group in the world with about one billion members. They teach that abortions are a form of murder, no matter what the situation or conditions leading up to the pregnancy. The only exception is when a medical procedure needed that has the death of the embryo or fetus as an undesired and unintended side effect. Contrary to the historical record, the church also teaches that its current position has remained unchanged from the beginning of Christianity. 

   The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., also opposes elective abortions.

Other large pro-life groups opposing elective abortions are:
African Methodist Episcopal Church
Assemblies of God
Church of God in Christ
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons)
Church of the Nazarene
Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.
Progressive National Baptist Convention
The Salvation Army
And hundreds of others, including all or essentially all Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other Evangelical denominations.

An exception among conservative Christian groups is the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They are pro-choice to the extent that they believe that “The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.” However, they do not condone abortions “…for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience…” They recognize that abortion can be a legitimate option for some women who “face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.” (continued next post)

 

[jrgiancola]

Some Catholic history on the subject:

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.
    St. Augustine (354-430 CE) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216): determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not "animated" at the time.
   Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.
    Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
    Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
    Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus." The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.
    Leo XIII (1878-1903):  issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
   He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life.
   Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus."  The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

   Thus it can be seen that not all churches agree on totally banning abortion.  Also, the Constitution speaks nothing of abortion.  In fact, nothing in the entire Bible speaks of abortion.  Jesus never mentioned the subject, even though it was practiced during his time on earth.

Thirdly, the church has no right to coerce its members or elected officials to vote one way or another (such as denying communion to a pro-choice elected official.) When a church starts to coerce its members into voting church dogma into law, that church violates Jesus’ own distinction between the Kingdom of God and kingdoms ruled by men. Christ did not want His church involved in politics. And, any church that gets too involved needs to be labeled a Political Action Committee and lose its tax-exempt status.

Whenever the church gets too involved with the state, the church becomes corrupt. History is replete with examples.

God’s church on earth must be pure and incorruptible.

 

[estesbob]

Some Catholic history on the subject:

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment”. He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216): determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.
Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.” The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.
Leo XIII (1878-1903): issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman’s life.
Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to “the fetus.” The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

Thus it can be seen that not all churches agree on totally banning abortion. Also, the Constitution speaks nothing of abortion. In fact, nothing in the entire Bible speaks of abortion. Jesus never mentioned the subject, even though it was practiced during his time on earth.

Thirdly, the church has no right to coerce its members or elected officials to vote one way or another (such as denying communion to a pro-choice elected official.) When a church starts to coerce its members into voting church dogma into law, that church violates Jesus’ own distinction between the Kingdom of God and kingdoms ruled by men. Christ did not want His church involved in politics. And, any church that gets too involved needs to be labeled a Political Action Committee and lose its tax-exempt status.

Whenever the church gets too involved with the state, the church becomes corrupt. History is replete with examples.

God’s church on earth must be pure and incorruptible.

Not this again. Thoroughly debunked here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=530928

 

[estesbob]

*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," he said.

Cardinal Burke*

 

[jrgiancola]

Not debunked at all. Of course the RCC is going to present its own version of history. I hear they even deny that they considered Galileo a heretic.

Regardless, why should your moral code be codified into law when the Christian churches themselves cannot agree on what is moral and immoral?

Why should my church submit to the dictates of your church or the Jimmy Swaggart churches?

You are free in this country to believe anything and everything you want to believe. But you have no right to thrust it onto me and others who believe differently.

I don’t belong to the RCC anymore. I’m not subject to its dictates. Neither are millions of other non-RCC Christians.

Abortion will never be totally banned. But there are some things the RCC could do if it really wanted to decrease abortions:

1. Allow artificial birth control; my church does.
2. Teach its students about chastity and sex within a marriage, but also teach them about protecting themselves with condoms.
3. Stop telling young people that masturbation is a sin; give them some way to release their sexual passions; it’s certainly preferable to teenage pregnancy, which usually results in abortion.

The RCC presents a no-win situation to its members, even those who are married:

A. Chastity (St. Paul said those who could not be chaste should get married. Obviously the Saint did NOT intend married couples to practice chastity);

B. No artificial birth control;

C. No masturbation;

D. No abortion, even if the woman will die as a result of the pregnancy.

If the RCC gave its members realistic, practical choices, it could probably reduce abortion by greater than 75%.

 

[jrgiancola]

Latest abortion statistics:

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Who’s having abortions (age)?
**52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% **and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who’s having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who’s having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Who’s having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%;** Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%**; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

These statistics speak volumes. Prevention is the best weapon against abortion. Give people realistic choices and the numbers will drop significantly.

 

[GraceSofia]

Some Catholic history on the subject:

Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul....

What a twisted LIE. What did the Apostolic Constitution really say?

The Apostolic Constitution said: “Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed.” -7:3

You can’t get any clearer: you shall not kill preborn babies.

The lengths to which you go to misrepresent the Church across various threads is appalling.

Bob has given a link which contains refutations so I’ll just add that the Catholic Church has always spoken out against abortion. For those who are interested in the early history: net-abbey.org/rccawaysantiabortion.htm

 

[jrgiancola]

Sophia, read your own quote:

… for everything that IS SHAPED… and has RECEIVED a SOUL …that’s what I said in my post. Where’s the lie? Have you read Augustine’s views on abortion? Have you read the papal bulls regarding animation and inanimation?

 

[jrgiancola]

Incidently, I believe the fetus obtains a soul at the moment of conception. My post was to show that even the church fathers, particularly Augustine who drew on Manichean philosophy as well, and the early RCC were not in total agreement regarding abortion.

 

[jrgiancola]

Why is it that catholic women account for 1/3 of abortions? Perhaps because they are not allowed to use artificial contraception and do not want to be chaste with their husbands. Why should they practice chastity with their husbands? Why can’t they just enjoy the sexual intimacy with the men they love without having the desire to procreate at that time?

 

[jrgiancola]

You speak of lies; let’s talk of truth.

Let’s talk about the in-fighting between the Arians and the Athanasians after Constantine made Christianity the world religion. Let’s talk about the murders they committed against each other in the name of the church during that time.

Let’s talk about the murders of gnostics, Waldensians, Albigensians, Cathars.

Let’s talk about the murders of the people of Constantinople in the 13th century by the Crusaders with the goal to destroy Orthodox Christianity.

Let’s talk about the millions killed by the Inquisitions, burned at the stake. They did not even have the decency to kill the victims is a less horrible, humane way.

Let’s talk about the murders of Protestants under Saint Thomas More.

RCC history is replete with murder, from the time of Constantine through the Renaissance.

I suppose you think this is all a lie too.

I have no personal animosity against the RCC. But if you want to talk truth, let’s look at the whole truth.

 

[estesbob]

Not debunked at all. Of course the RCC is going to present its own version of history. I hear they even deny that they considered Galileo a heretic.

.

The Catholic Church taught that abortion is mortal sin since the first century. . There has been much debate over years over what the severity of the pennance that shuld be assessed for for this committing mortal sin- a concept it would be totally foreign to a non-Catholic, especially when they want to view Church history through the prism of their own 21st-century political views.

Your views on Galileo are subtly mistaken- the typical anit-Catholic throwaway comment by somebody who does not understand the situation and doesn’t really care to as their only interest in the issue is to use it as a cudgel to attack the Catholic Church.

 

[PatriceA]

Did the OP ever get HIS question answered before all these pages of debate and attacks on the Catholic Church?

 

[ndeparis88]

Not debunked at all. Of course the RCC is going to present its own version of history. I hear they even deny that they considered Galileo a heretic.

Regardless, why should your moral code be codified into law when the Christian churches themselves cannot agree on what is moral and immoral?

Why should my church submit to the dictates of your church or the Jimmy Swaggart churches?

You are free in this country to believe anything and everything you want to believe. But you have no right to thrust it onto me and others who believe differently.

I don’t belong to the RCC anymore. I’m not subject to its dictates. Neither are millions of other non-RCC Christians.

Abortion will never be totally banned. But there are some things the RCC could do if it really wanted to decrease abortions:

1. Allow artificial birth control; my church does.
2. Teach its students about chastity and sex within a marriage, but also teach them about protecting themselves with condoms.
3. Stop telling young people that masturbation is a sin; give them some way to release their sexual passions; it’s certainly preferable to teenage pregnancy, which usually results in abortion.

The RCC presents a no-win situation to its members, even those who are married:

A. Chastity (St. Paul said those who could not be chaste should get married. Obviously the Saint did NOT intend married couples to practice chastity);

B. No artificial birth control;

C. No masturbation;

D. No abortion, even if the woman will die as a result of the pregnancy.

If the RCC gave its members realistic, practical choices, it could probably reduce abortion by greater than 75%.

Acually it really wasn’t the Church herself. it’s rather a myth that he was called a heretic. read Diane Moczars book and you’ll see.

Those Christian churches are still ultimately traditions of men. our own interpretation of what it was WE or YOU mostly think how Jesus was suppose to be. I hear many Atheist say the reason they don’t believe is because of all the denominations that think they have it all figured out.

If you say we are free to believe and have no right to thrust it onto you then why are you thrusting what you believe onto us.

Those ways you listed about decreasing abortions is flawed and it won’t work. First if we are free to believe why do we have to follow your church’s ways.

next chastity and sex within marriage means you have to not condone the use of condoms, besides your only encouraging them to do it because now they can do it without having to take responsibility for their actions. besides they break. it’s not positive for chastity. By the way, a good friend of mine is a non denom Christian and him and his wife stayed chaste till marriage, and I’m sure if he actually new the health risk for a woman when taking birth control he’d seriously consider NFP…

Masturbation is a sin, but it’s not like you will be doomed for eternity if you do it. that’s why we got to confession and pray for forgiveness because God is forgiving.

It is a win win situation for it’s members, see personal gratification is still above getting your spouse to heaven.

As for saint paul you should read it again, also there are many book by non denominational Christians who write about chastity, and don’t you think he said that because as least when your married you can use your so called un-chasteness to bring about a life. or maybe he said it so you have a reason to be more chaste.

we reward people when they get abortions, that’s why there is so much of it. people can’t fix the worlds problems, and the CC is trying to do that through the teachings of Christ. look at planned parenthood, hey Susie wanna kill your kid, sure i’ll take money forcefully( through laws and legislation) from john so you won’t have to worry about it, i mean even though you were the one who opened your legs. or for the problem of the culture of death and the sex crazed society have a bunch of kids so you don’t have to work and other hard working people can pay your bills for you. JPII said if you want Justice, be Chaste.

We have to teach kids better, to appreciate the gifts they have been given, when you jerk off your only objectifying your self and someone else. What are men addicted to online, PORN and it only degrades there view of woman, now they can have any girl and not have to worry about being attached they just say hello hand and have at it. that’s what causes this. the selfishness, the lust, the gluttony, I even know people who have sex cause they are bored.There is no LOVE, and by handing out pills and condoms you are only adding to it, and if you apparently think the needs of older already born people come before unborn then you are already failing in wanting something better for them. People only listen to Jesus when they want something, not in the worst of circumstances. You are in tune with God will when you give up yourself for others, when you give up your wants you cravings for the good of others. Mary saw her Son nailed to the Cross by her FREE WILL she allowed it obeyed God she wasn’t oppressed, she accepted her sons death for the salvation of all of us, who are we to lessen that. stopping abortion will have countless lives, the Chasity that’s real like in Mary in Jesus, that’s our chastity if that spreads it will be even better than saying NO to abortions even though it will be there to. Death is the beginning, and if a woman who was young anyway could see her son scourged torn apart, and in his Glory then we are capable of that to, it’s hard it’s brutal, but for salvation of others, for LOVE to reign we have to say Yes to God.

 

[ndeparis88]

You speak of lies; let’s talk of truth.

Let’s talk about the in-fighting between the Arians and the Athanasians after Constantine made Christianity the world religion. Let’s talk about the murders they committed against each other in the name of the church during that time.

Let’s talk about the murders of gnostics, Waldensians, Albigensians, Cathars.

Let’s talk about the murders of the people of Constantinople in the 13th century by the Crusaders with the goal to destroy Orthodox Christianity.

Let’s talk about the millions killed by the Inquisitions, burned at the stake. They did not even have the decency to kill the victims is a less horrible, humane way.

Let’s talk about the murders of Protestants under Saint Thomas More.

RCC history is replete with murder, from the time of Constantine through the Renaissance.

I suppose you think this is all a lie too.

I have no personal animosity against the RCC. But if you want to talk truth, let’s look at the whole truth.

Seven Lies About Catholic History by Diane Moczar. I dare you to read it, but you probably won’t because then you might learn something and have to take back your thinking. I’m not saying this in spite, I’m defending the hope that is in me. I’m also not blaming you for thinking that those myths ans fallacies are ingrained in us. What Diane writes is believable and well she has the creds. you don’t ask an Atheist about the magisterium it’s a concept no one really gets that any more. if you think Catholics will sugar coat history well your missing something. Diane spells it out and it’s practical.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," he said.

Cardinal Burke*

Can you provide a link where I can read that quote for myself, including the context?

 

[Newbie2]

Estebob, I have decided that the agenda needed for the 300 million LIVING Americans is more important than the agenda of anti-abortionists. Yes, you are correct. Especially since there will never be a total ban on abortion; the people will simply not support this. Living (already born) people have more rights than unborn people. Sorry again. I would support a total ban on abortion with an exception to abort to save the life of the mother. Abortion is important to me. But 300 million living, struggling Americans take precedence in my opinion. It’s a matter of priorities. I will not vote for a Republican who will destroy the lives and livelihoods of 300 million Americans just to satisfy their own personal greed.

So you’re OK with sucking the life out of a partially-born infant? “Partial Birth Abortion”

I haven’t heard yet the explanation of how protecting the unborn equals “Personal greed”. Please elaborate.

   Thus it can be seen that not all churches agree on totally banning abortion.  Also, the Constitution speaks nothing of abortion.  In fact, nothing in the entire Bible speaks of abortion.  Jesus never mentioned the subject, even though it was practiced during his time on earth.Thirdly, the church has no right to coerce its members or elected officials to vote one way or another (such as denying communion to a pro-choice elected official.)    When a church starts to coerce its members into voting church dogma into law, that church violates Jesus' own distinction between the Kingdom of God and kingdoms ruled by men.  Christ did not want His church involved in politics.  And, any church that gets too involved needs to be labeled a Political Action Committee and lose its tax-exempt status.

Whenever the church gets too involved with the state, the church becomes corrupt. History is replete with examples.

God’s church on earth must be pure and incorruptible.

(red)You don’t know this for a fact. Scripture points out that Jesus said many things that weren’t recorded. He many not have specifically mentioned abortion, but he may have.

Just sayin’.

(blue highlight) Seriously? What, in your mind, is “too” involved?

Why should my church submit to the dictates of your church or the Jimmy Swaggart churches?

You are free in this country to believe anything and everything you want to believe. But you have no right to thrust it onto me and others who believe differently.

I don’t belong to the RCC anymore. I’m not subject to its dictates. Neither are millions of other non-RCC Christians.

Abortion will never be totally banned. But there are some things the RCC could do if it really wanted to decrease abortions:

1. Allow artificial birth control; my church does.
2. Teach its students about chastity and sex within a marriage, but also teach them about protecting themselves with condoms.

Your reason has failed. “Protecting” themselves from what? STDs? And “protecting” themselves from STDs decreased abortions just how? Did I misunderstand, or are you listing reasons other than the “things the RCC could do if it really wanted to decrease abortions”?

1. Stop telling young people that masturbation is a sin; give them some way to release their sexual passions; it’s certainly preferable to teenage pregnancy, which usually results in abortion.

Clearly, you don’t understand the virtue of Chastity.
The RCC presents a no-win situation to its members, even those who are married:

A. Chastity (St. Paul said those who could not be chaste should get married. Obviously the Saint did NOT intend married couples to practice chastity);

Clearly, we don’t take St. Paul’s advice as dogma or doctrine. He also suggested that women be quiet and should have their heads covered in church.
B. No artificial birth control;

Actually, the principle is “no contraception”.
C. No masturbation;

Why should one need to masturbate if one was married?
D. No abortion, even if the woman will die as a result of the pregnancy.

Ever hear of the principle of double effect?
If the RCC gave its members realistic, practical choices, it could probably reduce abortion by greater than 75%.

That may be true if all of society was Catholic. Clearly, epidemiology is not your strong suit.

 

[estesbob]

Can you provide a link where I can read that quote for myself, including the context?

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004453.htm