How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m going back to my post #323. No one bothered to answer my questions, so I’ll post them again:

The Church teaches that a person with a soul is created at the moment of conception. The DNA from the egg combines with the DNA from the sperm to form a new individual. When does this happen?

In 1869 the Church changed its teaching of 1800+ years and said that all abortions = murder. What else was happening (particularly in the Church) that might have influenced this decision?
 
Evidently there are Catholics who pontificate and have decided upon themselves to become their own Popes and define what is a Catholic. Maybe they believe that Christ Himself made them their own vicars of Christ and given them the Keys to the Kingdom and the authority to bind and loose, and that authority has extended to determine what makes a true Catholic depending on the individual Catholics political views, what party they belong to, and for whom they vote. I don’t think that is what Christ intended
 
Ah, selective quoting! You neglected to quote the first part of that very same paragraph, so I’ll help you out:

The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses."
 
If you go down that route let’s change one little thing:

“The Church Fathers, and theologians up to the [18]60’s, as well as the Church herself, taught that abortion before movement in the womb was not murder.”
 
Which leads to the question: What exactly is “divine revelation”?

Which leads to the question: What exactly are “those dogmas”?

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I see loopholes you could drive a truck through.
 
I’ve already posted the article by Noonan. He has footnotes. Knock yourself out.
 
So enlighten me: Exactly what are “all the dogmas” and tell me if all theologians and / or the hierarchy of the Church agree on what they are? Or do some say “this is a dogma” and others say “No, it’s not.”
 
Indeed. Unfortunately, though, while Nazi Germany was destroyed, Nazism and neo-Nazism as an ideology was never destroyed. Most Nazis weren’t even punished for their crimes and many sought asylum and were granted it. There are fascist and neo-Nazi organizations throughout the world, and, of course, in the United States. Nazism evidently is experiencing a resurgence in the US, either in the forms of organized groups or individuals supporting Nazism. Evidently, many pro-Trump individuals also embrace Nazism and are embolden to display their Nazi flags. It doesn’t help when we have a President that not only refuses to condemn Nazism, but to embrace it, and calls neo-Nazis "very fine people.
We cannot and must not allow neo-Nazism to flourish and take hold in America. Trump is enabling and encouraging it. It is an abomination. He, of course, doesn’t openly embrace Nazism, and as stupid as he is, he’s not that stupid. Rather, he embraces and brings his fascist far right-wing ideology wrapped in the American flag under the guise of “patriotism”. He’s clever, yet insidious, in that regard. Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
 
The Eastern Orthodox reject Limbo. They are Apostolic and our “Second Lung”.
True they are the second lung and Apostolic but not all Eastern Churches are in communion with the Pope and so do not have the fullness of truth. It still is the Catholic church alone that has received Divine Revelation. That is where the fullness of truth is.

Again, even if someone were to go straight to heaven when they die and even if there wasn’t anywhere but heaven for them to go (which is not the case) it is still no one’s place to end that person’s life. Abortion along with all other mortal sins, is a sin that needs confessed to a priest and then that person needs to trust the love of God for themselves and the aborted babies, that whether they are in limbo or not, God has mercy and is loving them.
 
Last edited:
I will not go in discussion here, let us leave this discussion for the Catholic theologians and scholars and jesuits.
Divine Revelation, through God’s Holy Word and Sacred Tradition, comes to the Catholic Church alone, not the scholars, theologians or the Jesuits. They do not make these decisions. They are relying on their own minds and thinking. God reveals to the Catholic church and He has already spoken. Man is just trying to twist things to their own desires…
 
Last edited:
But once again the article equivocates and does not address the question. It forms its own question, and of course answers it! What a surprise!

I have said repeatedly that the Church ALWAYS thought abortion was a bad thing. A sin if you like. And I have also said repeatedly that some in the Church (and your article quotes a couple) even early on equated any abortion with murder. No one is arguing those points.

What the article (and others like it) evades talking about it is the fact that the Church as a whole, officially, in canon law and in the words of Pope Innocent III DENIED that ALL abortion = murder. Before movement in the womb it was an offense against the rights of the father, not murder. That changed in 1869. Again, I’ll ask–Why 1869? What was going on in the Church at that general time period that made it so important that they went out of their way to re-define all abortion as murder?
 
I’m going to help you out here. Here’s a good article by Avery Dulles. http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/29/29.3/29.3.1.pdf

Let me quote a few passages:

"Nobody has ever undertaken to draw up a complete list of the Church’s dogmas, and the effort would be futile, because there are many borderline cases. "

“Catholic theology in the past few years has been radically reassessing the status of dogma, with the result that the Church’s position appears far less inflexible than is generally thought to be the case.
The concept of dogma underlying Bea’s remarks, though widely prevalent, is of relatively recent vintage. Neither in the Bible, nor in the writings of the Fathers, nor in medieval Scholasticism does the
term have this technical meaning. In ancient and medieval times"dogma” sometimes denotes simply an opinion or tenet of some philosophical or religious group—not necessarily true, let alone revealed. The term was used also in a juridical sense, to designate an official edict or decree. Even in the sixteenth century, as Piet Fransen points out, the Council of Trent “could ‘define a dogma’ while remaining perfectly conscious of the fact that the content of this dogma was not necessarily immutable.”

“…the current notion of dogma was forged in the controversial theology of the Counter Reformation.”

“In the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the faith was threatened by the attacks in the name of reason, Chrismann’s authoritarian view of dogma was found to be a handy weapon. At least in substance, it reappears in the official Roman documents of the period, such as the Syllabus of Errors of 1864, the Constitutions of Vatican I, and the anti-Modernist documents of 1907-10. The notion that there could be doctrines immune to historical limitations and capable of being imposed by the sheer weight of extrinsic authority reflects the nonhistorical and juridical type of thinking prevalent in the Church of the Counter Reformation. The roots of this mentality may be traced to Greek intellectualism andRoman legalism. More proximately, the absolutistic view of dogma reflects the characteristics of Catholic theology in a rationalistic era.”

Since most Catholics I have run into have never heard of Avery Dulles, I’ll briefly address those who don’t know him. He was both a theologian and cardinal (made cardinal by John Paul II in 2001). He taught theology at Woodstock, Catholic U, and Fordham. He was president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. A Jesuit. And much more. A fascinating bit of trivia is that he was the son of John Foster Dulles, Sec. of State under Eisenhower, and his uncle was Allan Dulles, head of the CIA.
 
Last edited:
That’s an easy one–because in most cases the woman was making the decision and ignoring the interests of the father.
 
No clue about 1869? Then I’ll give you a hint: you probably have a medal commemorating it. Not 1869 mind you, but in the same time frame.
 
No one is saying–not me, not Noonan–that the Church ever said abortion was OK. But what they did say is that until you detected motion in the womb, abortion was NOT murder. It was a sin against the rights of the father. After you felt motion in the womb, abortion became murder.
Since I don’t read Latin, it will be a while before I can read what Aquinas wrote as referred to by Noonan (footnote 76), but in the other sources I have read, these issues of formation and whether or not the act is homicide come up in the context of someone causing a miscarriage by an act not originally intended to abort.

At that time, little was known about embryology. Not like today, when we can get 3D sonograms.

A woman might or might not be pregnant even when showing signs of pregnancy. This, quickening would be the definitive sign of pregnancy.

But what is quickening? It is when the mother can feel the baby’s movements. The only thing that has changed from the week before the mother can feel the baby and the first time she can feel the baby is the size of the baby.

For legal purposes, knowing whether an action has caused a miscarriage or whether the women’s period started then is coincidental is really important. Thus, some definitive standard was necessary to show what had happened. Innocent until proven guilty after all.

We now know much, much more about the process of development in the womb.

Why should we take the standards developed by people who know so little about what was happening as our standard today? Especially since those same people simply regarded an early abortion as a different kind of sin rather than no sin at all.

St Thomas Aquinas and others who wrote about these issues were indeed brilliant men and formed lots of our theology, but when it comes to embryology, they did the best they could with the knowledge they had.

With the huge increase in scientific knowledge we now have, surely we can do better than to use their faulty conclusions to justify allowing the killing of the unborn?
 
And you seem to only quote sources from the mid-19th c.!

And I don’t think Cardinal Avery Dulles is “trying to defy the teachings of the Church.” If he were still alive, I’m pretty sure he would take issue with that!

As I have said multiple times, these forums seems to attract what I call “black and whiters.” People who see only black or white, not shades of grey. And yet virtually every issue is a shade of grey. I’m a “shade of grey” person.
 
Why should we take the standards developed by people who know so little about what was happening as our standard today? Especially since those same people simply regarded an early abortion as a different kind of sin rather than no sin at all.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. But consider your sentence above. Then go back to the 1869 change where all abortions were considered murder. Then, in the context of your sentence “…standards developed by people who know so little…” perhaps you would like to address the question I’ve asked twice with no response: The father’s sperm contains his DNA. The mother’s egg contains her DNA. At what point do these combine to form a new individual’s DNA? (and then go back to 1869 and "standards developed by people who know so little…)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top