How can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?

[goout]

Thorolfr:

So, if someone went on another person’s property and stepped on one of his acorns and crushed it, would that be the same as if he went on that person’s property and cut down his oak tree? Does the acorn have the same worth as an oak tree?

Exactly. That’s what the pro-lifers are saying.

Self demonstrative disregard for human dignity.
You are equating human life with that of a tree.

Is there anything exceptional about being human in your eyes, or are we all subject to your opinions on the matter?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So a clump of cells two days old should have exactly the same status as a 30-year-old mother who is healthy and normal in all respects? I’m sorry, that’s just mind-boggling to me. I can’t buy it.

Can you explain why in a few clear statements.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You should stop distorting what the Church teaches. It is shameful and scandalous to those wanting to learn.

I’m not distorting anything. I’m asking you to read and form your own opinions and interpretations. If they’re different than mine, that’s up to you.

You cannot change the Tradition, history, theology, FAITH of the Church to meet your less than perfect expectations.

No, I can’t change the historical record. I don’t want to. You appear to be unaware of it.

First, let me turn to that ultra-liberal secularist source, EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM They have an article “Abortion and the Catholic Church.” It pulls together a lot of sources, but sadly they deviate from simply stating facts when they say

"The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion. This particular lie has been effectively used by unscrupulous pro-abortion activists all over the world to confuse and neutralize their Catholic opposition…

…The falsehoods shown in Figure 43-1 have been bandied about by devious pro-abortionists for the last century, and the time has come to lay them to rest once and for all."

First, they are equating pro-abortion and pro-choice positions. They are not the same at all. Second, I am unaware of any claim that “the Church has not always condemned abortion.” It has. No question about it: abortion–in any form–has always been seen as an evil, a sin, and undesirable. Agreed. But that’s a straw man.

The real question is this: Has the Church changed its position on abortion? Has its position ALWAYS been what it is today (human life begins at conception and abortion = murder)? And of course the answer is no. It’s a matter of record. The Church changed its position in 1869, when it adopted the current beliefs. The Irish Times has a good summary: Time for a rational debate on when human life begins Until 1869 (with the exception of a couple years in the 16th century), the position of the Church was that abortion = murder only after movement was felt in the womb (“quickening”). When does this take place? It depends on what source you read. 18 weeks is a good estimate-- 4 1/2 months into pregnancy. Before 1869 if an abortion took place before this point, it was still considered a sin, but a much lesser one. It was NOT considered murder–although, yes, there were various theologians who said it was. But the OFFICIAL position of the Church was that it was NOT murder.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

To deny it the same rights as other members of the species simply because it hasn’t hit a subjectively-determined milestone is nonsense.

So a clump of cells two days old should have exactly the same status as a 30-year-old mother who is healthy and normal in all respects? I’m sorry, that’s just mind-boggling to me. I can’t buy it.

That wasn’t my quote. But your response looks like a strawman.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

So why the change? Two reasons, one scientific, one religious. In 1803 abortion was made illegal in Britain, and by the 1820s states were passing similar laws. In 1857 the American Medical Assoc. began opposing abortion. Why? One reason was that “quickening” was now seen as just one point in the continuous development of the fetus, not some sort of crucial turning point. Fine. But…
“The American Medical Association’s crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of “regular” physicians over midwives and homeopaths. More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism.”

Abortion in American History

The year after abortion was legalized in New York State, the maternal-mortality rate there dropped by 45 percent—one reason why legalization can be seen as “a public-health triumph.”

www.theatlantic.com

So the AMA was really trying to eliminate its competition–midwives. This was when doctors were trying to “professionalize” being a doctor.

The religious reason for the 1869 change in Church opinion? The proclamation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Mary was seen as free from sin “in the first instant of her conception.” So conception was given a new importance. And logically, it follows that if original sin was possible from the first instant of conception, then from a religious point of view, conception was the beginning of human life. The Vatican realized their original teaching conflicted with the Immaculate Conception, so they changed the teaching on abortion.

Now the Irish Times article gives a fairly good summary of all this. But if you are looking for a scholarly article, here you go: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History” by John T. Noonan.

It’s worthwhile explaining who John Noonan is, if you don’t know already. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. He got an MA and PhD from Catholic U. in philosophy. Then he got a law degree from Harvard. He taught law at both Notre Dame and Berkeley. He was a consultant for Paul VI’s commission on contraception. He wrote scholarly books on the history of usury and contraception. He also wrote books on the Catholic Church and religious freedom. He was appointed by Reagan to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1985 and remained a judge until his death in 2017. In other words, he’s not some pro-choice liberal hack. He’s a major scholar of religious legal history. So his article (47 pages) is well worth reading in its entirety.

Noonan recounts the case of a Carthusian monk, who accidentally caused his mistress to abort. Pope Innocent III ruled that he should be suspended from his priestly duties if he caused the abortion AFTER the quickening in the womb since this would be murder. If it occurred before, it was NOT murder.

Turn to canon law. “Aliquando” was the section that covered abortion from about the 12th c. on. This was part of a collection of canons collected by Gratian, who asked the question “Are those who procure an abortion homicides or not?” The answer: it was only homicide AFTER the fetus was formed in the womb. This was not repealed until the new Code of Canon Law–in 1917!

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

You should stop distorting what the Church teaches. It is shameful and scandalous to those wanting to learn.

I’m not distorting anything. I’m asking you to read and form your own opinions and interpretations. If they’re different than mine, that’s up to you.

You cannot change the Tradition, history, theology, FAITH of the Church to meet your less than perfect expectations.

No, I can’t change the historical record. I don’t want to. You appear to be unaware of it.

First, let me turn to that ultra-liberal secularist source, EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM They have an article “Abortion and the Catholic Church.” It pulls together a lot of sources, but sadly they deviate from simply stating facts when they say

"The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion. This particular lie has been effectively used by unscrupulous pro-abortion activists all over the world to confuse and neutralize their Catholic opposition…

…The falsehoods shown in Figure 43-1 have been bandied about by devious pro-abortionists for the last century, and the time has come to lay them to rest once and for all."

First, they are equating pro-abortion and pro-choice positions. They are not the same at all. Second, I am unaware of any claim that “the Church has not always condemned abortion.” It has. No question about it: abortion–in any form–has always been seen as an evil, a sin, and undesirable. Agreed. But that’s a straw man.

The real question is this: Has the Church changed its position on abortion? Has its position ALWAYS been what it is today (human life begins at conception and abortion = murder)? And of course the answer is no. It’s a matter of record. The Church changed its position in 1869, when it adopted the current beliefs. The Irish Times has a good summary: Time for a rational debate on when human life begins Until 1869 (with the exception of a couple years in the 16th century), the position of the Church was that abortion = murder only after movement was felt in the womb (“quickening”). When does this take place? It depends on what source you read. 18 weeks is a good estimate-- 4 1/2 months into pregnancy. Before 1869 if an abortion took place before this point, it was still considered a sin, but a much lesser one. It was NOT considered murder–although, yes, there were various theologians who said it was. But the OFFICIAL position of the Church was that it was NOT murder.

Absolutely false and a distortion of history by pro choice propaganda. The church has always taught that abortion has always been graveful sinful. Explicitly. And this goes back to the first century.

 

[Sbee0]

Thorolfr:

So, if someone went on another person’s property and stepped on one of his acorns and crushed it, would that be the same as if he went on that person’s property and cut down his oak tree? Does the acorn have the same worth as an oak tree?

Exactly. That’s what the pro-lifers are saying.

No it isn’t.

Acorn → Oak tree is also a laughably bad analogy to use in this debate.

 

[prayerrider]

It expresses a utilitarian and decidedly anti-Catholic view of human life. Such utilitarianism can be extended to support euthanasia, eugenics, and even genocide.

 

[njlisa]

@LateCatholic

I wish you’d read my original posts thoroughly and avoided name-calling. I directly addressed the issue of social inequality. I never spoke of banning abortion. My data is linked to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.

If pro-abortion Christians were to look deeper, they would see that abortion is a social injustice. Seventy-five percent of American women who seek abortions are poor or low income. It’s clear that poor women have fewer choices – not more – when they have abortions.

We have to help squeamish Christians see get past the arguments about women’s rights and health. We need to help them see that women’s rights are being violated.

You don’t know me. You don’t know my politics. You don’t know that I’m a liberal who fervently believes in empowering the poor through social programs. You don’t know how deeply I promote women’s rights. You don’t know that I grew up in a poor neighbor.

You don’t know that I spend 90 percent of my time on CAF on the prayer intentions board.

I would ask for an apology, but that would be a waste of time. I’m better off being sticking to the prayer intentions community. God bless you.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You should include a source.

 

[Sbee0]

You should include a source.

Here’s one: exerpt from the Didache.
http://www.thedidache.com/

1. But the second commandment of the teaching is this:
2. “Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery”; thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide; “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”;

Church thinkers such as Augustine also called it a serious sin. The Church’s opposition to abortion is nothing new, saying otherwise is yet another typical attempt by pro choice propaganda to gaslight and deceive pro lifers.

 

[Aquinas11]

The real question is this: Has the Church changed its position on abortion? Has its position ALWAYS been what it is today (human life begins at conception and abortion = murder)? And of course the answer is no.

Per this logic, we should support Slavery since Catholic Church used to support it but no longer does

 

[Thorolfr]

We’re not dealing with an acron or a tree, neither of which have any inherent worth. We are dealing with a human being at different stages of development. The two things are not even remotely similar, and if that’s the best counter-argument you can come up with, perhaps you need to reconsider your position.

But I think that most Americans do see a difference between a zygote or an embryo and a seven month old fetus or a one year old child. I was born prematurely at seven months, so I certainly find late term abortions very troubling. But like many Americans, I’m much more troubled by a late term abortion than I am about someone taking artificial contraception that prevents an embryo from implanting. I don’t see the embryo as being a sentient human being in the same way. Even if I think of what I was like at that stage of development, it doesn’t seem the same. As a just conceived embryo, my chances of survival were already a little slim. I’m glad I suppose that I survived, but if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t even have known. Nor would I have suffered since I can’t conceive of something so early in its development that it can hardly be seen by the naked eye as being able to suffer.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Nor would I have suffered since I can’t conceive of something so early in its development that it can hardly be seen by the naked eye as being able to suffer.

Similar states can be induced on adults so they can have painless deaths.

 

[Moose]

Instead, why don’t you show me RC sources that say MURDER is not MURDER!

Until the, those views are problematic at best and at worst heresy!

 

[prayerrider]

Moose, I’m guessing this is directed to ErikaSpirit16?
Sometimes hard to follow who is saying what in these long posts with multiple quotes. SbeeO is passionately pro-life, as are you, obviously.

 

[Aquinas11]

I don’t see the embryo as being a sentient human being in the same way. Even if I think of what I was like at that stage of development, it doesn’t seem the same.

Of course a conceived embryo is not “the same” as 7 month old baby. The latter is 7 months older.

As a just conceived embryo, my chances of survival were already a little slim. I’m glad I suppose that I survived, but if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t even have known.

So now chance of survival defines personhood? So we can stab a patient to death who just was told he has 10% chance of living by doctor? See how insane this rabbit hole is?

Nor would I have suffered since I can’t conceive of something so early in its development that it can hardly be seen by the naked eye as being able to suffer.

If ability to suffer defines personhood, we just made it ok to kill someone who is put under during a surgery.

 

[njlisa]

@Benjinho:

Please correct your post to delete this statement below from under my thumbnail. I never posted these comments. Make it a separate quote and cite the real poster. Thanks and God bless you.

The most successful way to end poverty in any society is to allow abortion. It’ actually not even close. Forcing a woman to raise and take care of a child she cannot afford to not only ruins her life but the life of the child, increasing crime, disease, poverty.
I am NOT saying abortion is the answer. Far from it.

 

[prayerrider]

I just dont buy the poor catechisis angle. I mean no doubt we have poor catechisis, I’m shocked by things on these threads from practicing Catholics

Absolutely. It’s nice to try be charitable and blame " poor catechesis" (though not very charitable towards catechists). However, it’s evident that some professed Catholics obstinately and persistently deny Church teachings on abortion. There’s a word for such denial…

 

[Aquinas11]

However, it’s evident that some professed Catholics obstinately and persistently deny Church teachings on abortion

Pope Saint Pius X warned us about this over 100 years ago - that people from within Church would be greatest enemies of Church

POPE PIUS X: That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, ….thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.