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

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Read my post you quoted above again. Maybe read it a little slower this time.

Well, I quoted your post in full. It was very short: “The Church didn’t change its position at all. I’m afraid saying it ad nauseum and repeating it doesn’t make it so.”

Unless I am hallucinating, you are saying the Church has not changed its position (although you don’t specify what that is) on abortion. I am saying it has (and I specified exactly which positions: human life begins at conception and all abortion = murder).

Maybe you mean (but didn’t specify) that the Church has never changed its position that abortion is wrong. I explicitly agreed with that earlier. That’s not the question.

The Church has not changed its position at all that abortion is wrong and has always viewed it as a grevious sin. That’s what I said a few hours ago.

We know science has told us a lot about the unborn child since Roe. We have learned much. Advances in modern imaging and prenatal knowledge and all.

So it sounds to me like it’s perfectly suitable to take that knowledge gained during that time and see what SCOTUS thinks about Roe now. Which is the whole point of these laws.

 

[Aquinas11]

When is it legitimate to impose–with the force of law–your view of morality on others? It has NOTHING to do with whether your opinion is right (“truth”) or not.

obvious cases (murder, as has already been brought up) where there is virtually unanimous agreement

other cases where there is a small minority who thinks something is OK

but the vast majority thinks it’s immoral and makes it illegal

Note she adopts utilitarianism - majority rules! No matter how absurd!

So if you have 5 people on a boat including 3 men and 2 women, the majority men can vote to legalize rape! And it’s ok! That’s the hell of her ideology.

Again, it has NOTHING to do with the absolute “truth” of the issue

Note the incoherency - this rule is pitched as absolute truth…while simultaneously saying no such thing as absolute truth

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Since conception is nebulous as yourself have said than it could easily refer to a different part of conception.

 

[goout]

I may be–in YOUR opinion–interpreting these passages wrongly. But I am NOT distorting them–far from it, I’m not paraphrasing, I’m quoting! And I said explicitly in another post that I recognized that the author(s) of this document were not thinking of fertilized eggs when they wrote it–but I suggested that they SHOULD have been thinking of fertilized eggs. My purpose was simply to find some Church document that went into some detail as to what a “human being” was. This was what I came up with. If you can find another Church document that deals with the definition of “human being” then please post it (with a web address).

For your convenience:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

1. The New Testament revelation confirms the indisputable recognition of the value of life from its very beginning. The exaltation of fruitfulness and the eager expectation of life resound in the words with which Elizabeth rejoices in her pregnancy: “The Lord has looked on me … to take away my reproach among men” (Lk 1:25). And even more so, the value of the person from the moment of conception is celebrated in the meeting between the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth,

"Your eyes beheld my unformed substance" (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion

1. Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an “unspeakable crime”.[54]
   But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

Let me speak plainly:
you distort the Church’s teaching with deceptions. You are welcome to your opinion but distortions should be corrected.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

has always viewed it as a grevious sin.

Depends on what you mean by "grievous " sin. Until 1869, with the exception of a few years in the 16th c., the Church imposed different penalties for abortion BEFORE quickening and AFTER quickening. After quickening, the Church considered it murder. Before, it did not. Was it a sin in both cases? Sure. No one’s disputing that. Was the sin AFTER quickening more serious than BEFORE? Yes. They were considered different. 1869 changed that, and NOW any abortion = murder. That’s a change.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

you distort the Church’s teaching with deceptions.

How can I distort anything if I quote it? Take your false accusations elsewhere please.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

has always viewed it as a grevious sin.

Depends on what you mean by "grievous " sin. Until 1869, with the exception of a few years in the 16th c., the Church imposed different penalties for abortion BEFORE quickening and AFTER quickening. After quickening, the Church considered it murder. Before, it did not. Was it a sin in both cases? Sure. No one’s disputing that. Was the sin AFTER quickening more serious than BEFORE? Yes. They were considered different. 1869 changed that, and NOW any abortion = murder. That’s a change.

False.

Has the Catholic Church Always Condemned Abortion? | HLI

St Basil, 4th century. A lot earlier than 1869
Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide. … Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed or not

I realize this isn’t your intention but this kind of gaslighting won’t work here.

 

[Aquinas11]

How can I distort anything if I quote it? Take your false accusations elsewhere please.

Where’d you get notion you can’t distort something while quoting it? Sounds like you’re trying use some “absolute truth” which you’ve already said doesn’t exist

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just by the fact they support Trump shows rash judgment

Different meaning of “rash judgment” of course, but clever. From a prolife standpoint, however, supporting Trump was anything but a rash judgment. had he not won, we would have two new pro-abortion justices on the Court.

But returning to the topic, I think a pro-abortion Catholic could certainly be a “practicing Catholic” in the same way that any unrepentant sinner could be.

 

[goout]

You directly distort the Church"s teaching with deception. As I posted directly above.
You don’t seem to like information. Let me waste more bandwidth by reposting the material.

Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) | John Paul II

1. The New Testament revelation confirms the indisputable recognition of the value of life from its very beginning. The exaltation of fruitfulness and the eager expectation of life resound in the words with which Elizabeth rejoices in her pregnancy: “The Lord has looked on me … to take away my reproach among men” (Lk 1:25). And even more so, the value of the person from the moment of conception is celebrated in the meeting between the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth,

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s rash judgement and it proves Ridgerunner’s point.

 

[Benjinho]

Aquinas11:

So now Transgender people who don’t identify with any gender aren’t human and can be killed? Not very strong PR message for 2019

Again, don’t talk to me, talk to the guys at the Vatican who wrote the document! I’m just quoting!

And why am I doing that? Because pro-lifers here are concerned with what the Church says about abortion. Great. But when you dig down and try to get at the underlying assumptions, details, etc. they are pretty sparse. So I am just presenting what the Church said about “human beings” in one document.

So newborns recognize their mothers’ voices, which represents memory. They aren’t able to learn to read nor are they capable of object permanence. You ignored the intelligence part earlier and infants lack these aspects, and according to relatively recent neuroscience, may not develop self-consciousness until they are at least 2 months old, which is one of three aspects of the human soul:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/04/when-does-your-baby-become-conscious

So, newborns do not meet the criteria for being human beings per Communion and Stewardship both in terms of having a psyche and having a soul. Does this mean the Church does not see them as human persons? No. As you’ve stated, the church has always proclaimed that human life begins prior to birth, and since 1869 has held that it begins at conception. Communion and Stewardship should therefore not be used as a reference point for defining what the Church considers a person because that’s already been made clear since 1869.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

False.
https://www.hli.org/resources/has-the-catholic-church-always-condemned-abortion/

St Basil, 4th century. A lot earlier than 1869
Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide. … Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed or not

I realize this isn’t your intention but this kind of gaslighting won’t work here.

I read your article. Nothing new. I have NEVER written (feel free to check) that the Church said abortion was OK. I agree: It was always considered a sin. Your article–as with all (yes, all) pro-life articles I have read on the subject–sets up a straw man: They claim that opponents say that the Church approved or allowed abortion at some point. I have never written that. And your article goes on to quote a bunch of Church fathers who said all abortion is murder. I acknowledged that in an earlier post. I’ll say it again, just for you: There have always been some people in the Church who have thought all abortion = murder. But that is NOT to say they constituted OFFICIAL Church opinion. And of course there are others (Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas) on the other side–all abortions are NOT murder. Only after quickening. This was confirmed by Innocent III, the collection of canon laws by Gratian (again, repealed only in 1917!), and so on.

Please let’s not continue about this. Anyone is free to read the sources and come to their own conclusions. If you want to erase history, it’s your choice. If you want to distort what I wrote, you can, but it’s not fair. Attack what I wrote, not what you THINK I wrote.

 

[goout]

So then it seems you agree with this:

Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) | John Paul II

1. The New Testament revelation confirms the indisputable recognition of the value of life from its very beginning. The exaltation of fruitfulness and the eager expectation of life resound in the words with which Elizabeth rejoices in her pregnancy: “The Lord has looked on me … to take away my reproach among men” (Lk 1:25). And even more so, the value of the person from the moment of conception is celebrated in the meeting between the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth,

Which is the reference you asked for.

I am glad we are all on the same page now.

 

[Aquinas11]

This is all a red herring. You’re a utilitarian. You believe majority vote dictates what is right. This means rape is ok or infanticide or cannibalism, all of which achieved “majority” approval in different cultures. Your only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth, which is not only self contradicting but is required in order to justify the barbarism that is a consequence of utilitarianism. Keep trying to hide and duck under these silly “I’m just quoting!” games but your ideology is crystal clear

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

False.
https://www.hli.org/resources/has-the-catholic-church-always-condemned-abortion/

St Basil, 4th century. A lot earlier than 1869
Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide. … Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed or not

I realize this isn’t your intention but this kind of gaslighting won’t work here.

I read your article. Nothing new. I have NEVER written (feel free to check) that the Church said abortion was OK. I agree: It was always considered a sin. Your article–as with all (yes, all) pro-life articles I have read on the subject set up a straw man: They claim that opponents say that the Church approved or allowed abortion at some point. I have never written that. And your article goes on to quote a bunch of Church fathers who said all abortion is murder. I acknowledged that in an earlier post. I’ll say it again, just for you: There have always been some people in the Church who have thought all abortion = murder. But that is NOT to say they constituted OFFICIAL Church opinion. And of course there are others (Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas) on the other side–all abortions are NOT murder. Only after quickening. This was confirmed by Innocent III, the collection of canon laws by Gratian (again, repealed only in 1917!), and so on.

The article clearly demonstrates that the 1869 claim is a myth. If you read it you would have seen it. There was no “change”. If you read it you’ll see what the Church thinkers were trying to do without the benefit of modern science and it had absolutely nothing to do with changing its stance on abortion and the nature of the sin at that year.

Please cool it with the gaslighting. It really is a useless exercise and it won’t work here.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Communion and Stewardship should therefore not be used as a reference point for defining what the Church considers a person

If I write an article saying “An apple is a vegetable,” and then I write elsewhere at another time that “An apple is a fruit” and someone reads my earlier article and says “Erika says apples are vegetables” I’d say that’s a fair statement. The authors of Communion and Stewardship were not writing something they intended to be used in a debate about what a “human being” is in the context of unborn fetuses. I get that. But it is an official document, and you can’t blame me for what is, in fact, carelessness on the authors’ part. They should have known, esp. in today’s climate, that whatever they wrote about “human beings” would be applied to fetuses as well. I don’t think that thought ever crossed their minds. It should have.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Note the incoherency - this rule is pitched as absolute truth…while simultaneously saying no such thing as absolute truth

Wow, wow, wow. Time for pizza. Come on, play fair–tell me when I wrote that there was “no such thing as absolute truth.” I didn’t. You did.

So if you have 5 people on a boat including 3 men and 2 women, the majority men can vote to legalize rape! And it’s ok! That’s the hell of her ideology.

Yes. They could. And in some societies they do, although they may call it something else. As a purely practical matter, the majority can impose its will on the minority. Is it a good idea? Not if it’s a large minority. If the minority is insignificant, sure. We do it all the time without a second thought. Does that mean it’s right? No. It may or may not be. My “ideology” as you call it is that the majority should NOT impose its morality on a minority–unless there is an overwhelming (you can debate what % that is) majority. We impose our morality on people who want to marry two wives, or people who want to marry 10 year old girls, or people who want to rob banks.

There is a world of difference between what is right (“truth” if you like) and what is pragmatically, practically, and legally possible.

 

[goout]

Benjinho:

Communion and Stewardship should therefore not be used as a reference point for defining what the Church considers a person

If I write an article saying “An apple is a vegetable,” and then I write elsewhere at another time that “An apple is a fruit” and someone reads my earlier article and says “Erika says apples are vegetables” I’d say that’s a fair statement. The authors of Communion and Stewardship were not writing something they intended to be used in a debate about what a “human being” is in the context of unborn fetuses. I get that. But it is an official document, and you can’t blame me for what is, in fact, carelessness on the authors’ part. They should have known, esp. in today’s climate, that whatever they wrote about “human beings” would be applied to fetuses as well. I don’t think that thought ever crossed their minds. It should have.

Nonsense.
You attempted to deceive people by deliberately misrepresenting the document.

and now you blame it on the Church and the authors of the document, who are theologians by the way, and knew exactly what issues they were addressing and expressed themselves with precision.

BS.

 

[prayerrider]

Let’s ask Cardinal Arinze!
(The clip should be titled “Pro-Choice,” not “Pro-Abortion.”)