J
- Status
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Happy to help! The City of God talks about conscience in many places. You could also turn to the catechism if you like, specifically chapter 1, article 6 “Moral Conscience.” There are lots of things I could quote, but I’ll limit myself to just one, #1789:
"Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
If you haven’t noticed, Catholics are a minority in the US. And Canada, for that matter. There are millions of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and yes, atheists. Even Protestants. The other major religions have different standards for when life begins. Catholics–officially, at least–believe life begins at conception. Those other religions–which are major world religions, not some tiny cult–have different beliefs. If a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Protestant follows his conscience according to his/her own religion, certain abortions that would be sinful for a Catholic are allowed according to their own religions. Do we have a right to impose our own morality on other religions? If they did the same to us, for example imposing Shari’a law, would you be pleased?
Or, in the case of a Catholic, check out #1800 in the catechism: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” Is it not possible for a Catholic to believe that abortion in certain circumstances is not sinful? (And yes, I am very much aware of the current debate about whether or not conscience can go against the magisterium of the Church…but the fact that there IS a debate shows the matter is not settled.)
Newman also had a lot to say about individual conscience if you care to check it out.
Aquinas also had some things to say. He said that even if your conscience is in error, you are bound to follow it.
So if you want to argue with Augustine, Newman, Aquinas, and the catechism, go for it.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Josh–
I get it. You think abortion is wrong. Me too. But that doesn’t mean I can’t vote for someone who favors a woman’s right to choose (or “abortion” if you like–but these are completely different concepts).
I appreciate the section on abortion in the catechism. You’d better send that to the USCCB…I guess they didn’t read that section. Or…maybe they did!
J
josh987654321
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
You are misunderstanding me. I am using the subject of sin as an example to explain.
Nevertheless, the subject of evil is bound to sin. Because to do evil, is to sin against God. Either we speak as Catholics using Catholic knowledge or we can’t have a properly reasoned conversation on the matter.
First of all, what I was trying to point out, is that the Church is not just a visible ‘organisation’; it is a mystical family belonging to God, which stretches from earth to Heaven. It is a mystically instituted Church, and not just a visible organisation.
Second, at no time has the Church, or would the Church, allow diabolic acts.
Third, do you think that individuals would promote that they are participating in diabolic acts - of course not. So, how are Church officials supposed to punish its members and denounce acts that they don’t know are happening.
As said, how can the Church be accused of staying quiet, if they don’t know what is going on at magisterial level.
You are talking about commercial business. The reason companies ‘apologise’ is because they are running businesses, and if they don’t, their commercial value will drop, and people will stop buying their cars. It is motivated by business and money. They are in a competitive market in which there are many other car manufacturers that could take their customers. Also, the setup of a business is different. Of course, people at the top of VW might not have wanted scandals to happen and didn’t know - who knows - but their priority is keeping the business up-and-running after a fall.
The Catholic Church is not a professional money-making business; it is a “field hospital for souls”. I think it is registered as a charitable organisation.
The argument is better suited to the scenario in which some individual Catholics steal from the Church. They sin first against God and His Church.
Or when so-called ‘Catholics’ misrepresent the Church and lead people astray. They have a lot to apologise for - first to God, and His Church.
I am sure that when the Magisterium found out what was going in, they did act.
I also tend to think that States share some of the responsibility too.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
From the OP
When Pope John Paul II visited Canada in 1984 , he was supposed to meet with the indigenous peoples in Fort Simpson NWT, but a thick fog prevented that happening. He vowed to them that he would return. It took 3 years, but Pope John Paul II made the special trip to visit them in Fort Simpson on September 20th 1987. He wrote an address for that “MEETING WITH THE NATIVE PEOPLES OF CANADA.”
An excerpt :
The Indian Residential schools were set up by the Canadian government, they were a dumb idea, and some horrific abuses happened because of them. But the Church has apologized over and over again for the harm some of their members caused in the poorly conceived residential school system .
And as recently as 2009 Pope Benedict XVI had already invited a delegation from Canada’s Assembly of First Nations to Rome to express " his ‘sorrow’ over the abuse and ‘deplorable’ treatment that aboriginal students suffered at residential schools run by the Roman Catholic Church."
Phil Fontaine - who served for an unprecedented 3 terms as National Chief of the Assembly of first Nations ,approved:
I’m left wondering why PM Trudeau is pushing so hard to try and squeeze yet one more apology out of the Catholic Church on his visit to the Vatican ? Maybe he doesn’t like the blame sitting on the government’s shoulders - since they were the ones who set up the residential schools. Or maybe he feels if he goes on the offensive, there will be less chance of the Holy Father telling him abortion is wrong.
Or , could it be that, when we get right down to it, our government, in and if itself, has very little to offer our indigenous peoples ? -
Maybe our PM would be better off working on his own apology to the unborn.
Indigenous peoples form an irreplaceable part of the heart&soul of the Catholic Church in Canada. They are beloved . There are over 1,172,000 indigenous people in Canada. And guess what ? . . .
Perhaps the majority of our Catholic Indigenous peoples would like to tell PM Trudeau that he is totally wrong about abortion and that he doesn’t represent their views on the matter.
When Pope John Paul II visited Canada in 1984 , he was supposed to meet with the indigenous peoples in Fort Simpson NWT, but a thick fog prevented that happening. He vowed to them that he would return. It took 3 years, but Pope John Paul II made the special trip to visit them in Fort Simpson on September 20th 1987. He wrote an address for that “MEETING WITH THE NATIVE PEOPLES OF CANADA.”
An excerpt :
The demand for apology from the Catholic Church in their own country by those who barely possess a marginal understanding of Her (including a political type who would claim to be Catholic themselves) have perpetuated this apology thing to an extent that rivals the Great Accuser..
The Indian Residential schools were set up by the Canadian government, they were a dumb idea, and some horrific abuses happened because of them. But the Church has apologized over and over again for the harm some of their members caused in the poorly conceived residential school system .
And as recently as 2009 Pope Benedict XVI had already invited a delegation from Canada’s Assembly of First Nations to Rome to express " his ‘sorrow’ over the abuse and ‘deplorable’ treatment that aboriginal students suffered at residential schools run by the Roman Catholic Church."
Phil Fontaine - who served for an unprecedented 3 terms as National Chief of the Assembly of first Nations ,approved:
More of the same from CTV : Pope Apologizes for Abuse at Native Schools
I’m left wondering why PM Trudeau is pushing so hard to try and squeeze yet one more apology out of the Catholic Church on his visit to the Vatican ? Maybe he doesn’t like the blame sitting on the government’s shoulders - since they were the ones who set up the residential schools. Or maybe he feels if he goes on the offensive, there will be less chance of the Holy Father telling him abortion is wrong.
Or , could it be that, when we get right down to it, our government, in and if itself, has very little to offer our indigenous peoples ? -
Maybe our PM would be better off working on his own apology to the unborn.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
“Allow diabolic acts”? They sure did. Ask Bishop Weakland of Milwaukee. Ask all the bishops (I suspect a huge majority, if not all, of them) who knew of pedophilia and simply transferred the guilty priests or sent them to “rehab” and then put them back into contact with children. And it wasn’t just the US–it was Australia, Ireland, the UK, Germany, and on and on. The founder of Legionaries of Christ, Marcial Maciel, was allowed to go his merry way until 2006, when he was sent into luxurious retirement. He was actually honored by Pope John Paul II–who ignored the accusations against him.
I’m not sure how you, or anyone, could still be unaware of the scope of the pedophilia scandal. There is a good article in the New Yorker that hits some high (or low) points.
newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-pope-benedict-knew-about-abuse-in-the-catholic-church Part of the point of the article is that THEY KNEW. Ratzinger’s brother was on the 3-person supervisory board of a choir school in Germany where 231 boys were abused…“In fact, accusations of abuse surfaced and were investigated in 1987, but no one saw fit to remove Meier [the head of the school and the accused abuser] from his post until the year of his death.” He died in 1992. What does George Ratzinger have to say about all this? ““But I did not have the feeling at the time that I should do something about it.” He knew. His brother knew. They all knew.
As for money, my comparison to VW, etc. it’s estimated that the church has paid $1.6 billion (with a ‘b’) in restitution to victims. $400 million of that was in the US. But as far as I know, no diocese has come forward and said, “Here are the priests/nuns who were involved in this. Here are their names and where they were posted. Here is what they did. Here is an accounting of what money the diocese has paid in restitution.” In other words, they are all shirking responsibility. You know what? Parishioners are customers. Do you know how much money I have given to my local church or diocese since I became aware of this scandal? Nothing. Zero. Nor will I until the diocese comes forward and gives an accurate accounting and takes responsibility. How many times has your local priest addressed this problem in a sermon? Never?
O
OraLabora
Guest
I guess then you didn’t approve of the Pope meeting with President Trump who is nowhere near a faithful Catholic himself.Just a few days ago I thought the idea was a meeting with the Pope was a sign of faithful Catholicism. I’m confused.
The Pope, in addition to being Pope, is also a head of state (the Vatican), and as such frequently meets with other heads of state, regardless of whether or not they are Catholic.
O
OraLabora
Guest
This is what Pope Emeritus Benedict has to say about voting for pro-abortion candidates:
(my bold)
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I agree completely with Ratzinger’s letter. But I disagree completely with your characterization of pro-choice as the same as pro-abortion. I’m sure that there are some candidates who proclaims themselves to be “pro-abortion.” But the vast majority are simply “pro-choice,” as am I. This does NOT mean I am pro-abortion. Far from it: I believe in the sanctity of life, etc. etc. as much as the most extreme anti-abortion person on this thread.
What I do NOT believe is that I have the right to tell anyone what THEY should believe. This is a complex issue, and as I’ve said over and over on different threads, if you do just the slightest bit of research, you’ll find that different religions define the beginning of life at different stages in the development of an embryo. And again, these are not tiny cults, these are major world religions. To impose upon them our own particular Catholic morality, no matter how strongly we believe it is true, is simply wrong.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Just to clarify on that point: Relative to the entire population of the USA (approximately 326 million) Catholics are a minority. But comparatively, speaking of religions, the Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination in the US.
In 2016-2017 , when the US total population was at 322,795,335 , the US Catholic population stood at 70,412,021 or, 22% of the entire population
(statistics taken from page 72 of this PDF published by the Diocese of Reno )
Here similarly Catholics comprise between 37-40 % of the entire population (Canada’s total population is currently approximately 36.6 million) . . .depending on which set of statistics is being consulted.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
I believe that is simply a popular illusion which the abortionists try to propagate. Once all the sophistry has been trimmed away, there really isn’t any difference at all.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
A claim that Catholics were trying to “impose” their morality on the world, in the present day case of abortion,would appear to be a little lacking in substance. Actually , “Catholic” need not enter into it at all. There should be no conflict between truth and reason, and advances in medical science today leave no room for doubt. Reason alone suffices in the case of abortion.
Religions aside, medical science attests over and over again that human life begins at conception:
Several excerpts from Why Life Begins at Conception
If we won’t listen to medical science, then exactly what will we listen to - if anything . . . ?
Oh well. . . I guess there’s always. . .
i182.photobucket.com/albums/x151/rattlesnakeroot/blogger%202/lalala.jpg
.
Religions aside, medical science attests over and over again that human life begins at conception:
Several excerpts from Why Life Begins at Conception
Lots more at this link liveaction.org/news/40-quotes-from-medical-experts-that-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/
If we won’t listen to medical science, then exactly what will we listen to - if anything . . . ?
Oh well. . . I guess there’s always. . .
i182.photobucket.com/albums/x151/rattlesnakeroot/blogger%202/lalala.jpg
.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It’s a complex issue no doubt. But in all fairness to the discussion I have to say this: I myself was adopted in infancy. Had “choice” been socially and legally sanctioned back then (1958), and given the rate of abortions among unwanted pregnancies, and I’m not sure I’d be around today.
I profoundly wish, and pray, that all unborn persons should have that same opportunity. If you think this colours my objectivity, so be it. I am also a man, and disagree with the notion that this is a woman’s issue strictly. Those being aborted are of both genders, and both genders should be able to participate in the debate. I do believe we adoptees are not heard from nearly enough in this debate.
That said I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter as well; moreover, I believe, in mercy, that many women choosing abortion are under considerable stress, and in some cases also pressure from others. This IMHO mitigates to some degree the culpability of their sin.
But that does not mean that “choice” should, in Canada, be as free as it is. I still believe the notion that a right comes with a corresponding responsibility.
There is absolutely no doubt about this. From a few moments after conception, the zygote contains the entire genetic code of a human life. A single, unique, individual begins at that point in time. Any attempt to interfere with that process for the purpose of terminating that life, is an assault on human dignity, unless it’s an unintended consequence of a medical procedure to save the mother’s life.
The true test of democracy is not when the wishes of the majority are implemented no matter how wrong they are. The true test is when the life and dignity of the weakest members of humanity are protected from harm. Democracy without that protection is simply no more than mob rule.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I don’t see your point. My own point is that Catholics should not impose their own religious morality on other religions. If you lived in a country 99% Catholic, then that might make sense. But not in a country 22% or 40% Catholic.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
But “religions aside” is exactly the problem–it’s a religious question, a question of morality and sin. And if there are other major religions who have their own beliefs–which really amounts to saying when the soul–a religious concept–enters the body, it doesn’t matter what science says. And of course you could also make a “scientific” argument in the sense that although “life” might begin at conception, it is not viable outside the mother’s body until much later.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
But you are–as are virtually all others in this thread–overlooking the exact problem, even though you’re tripping over it: “the weakest members of humanity.” But that’s the point–other religions don’t believe embryos at certain stages are “humanity.”
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Sophistry is arguing that “pro-abortion” = “pro-choice.” It does not. If I like the color red, why should I force you to like the color red too? Liking the color red and taking the position that everyone should like the color red = “pro-abortion.” Liking the color red and saying “Everyone should decide for themselves what color they like” = pro-choice.
I personally abhor abortion as much or more than anyone on this thread. But that does not give me the right to impose my personal beliefs on others.
I wish all of you who are so sure would flip the question. What if you lived in a country where another religion was trying to enshrine its own definition of morality on you? For example, what if you lived in a fundamentalist Muslim country (pick one…) that said a female victim of rape should be imprisoned because by her own admission she had sex with someone not her husband? Check youtube–this happens to Westerners with regularity in Dubai and the Emirates. Are you OK with that? No?
O
OraLabora
Guest
Well, I think a point could be made that much of our social morality at least started in Judeo-Christian values which Catholics share: a few “thou shalt nots” that are still the basis of our legal system (theft, murder, perjury, to name a few).
So if we can impose those moral precepts, it’s not too big a stretch to include abortion under “thou shalt not kill”.
Judea-Christian values have always informed our consciences and laws, even for those who fail to recognize or acknowledge where their basic laws come from. It is to be hoped that they continue to do so! So to the extent that we shouldn’t “impose” our moral values on others, we already are and have been doing so for centuries.
- Status