How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
Depends on what you mean by “important.” Perhaps primary. But also likely the one with the least amount of knowledge (certainly compared to the abortionist), least amount of culpability…
Click to expand...
I must correct you there. Canon 1398 states:
Canon 1398:
A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
Click to expand...
Just to remind everyone what “procure” means, it includes “to obtain” . It also includes “to induce, or cause to take place.” That most certainly includes both the women who seeks and obtains and abortion and the medical practioner who performs it. Far from being the least culpable, the women who choses abortion is one of the most culpable individuals in an completed abortion. Of course this does not apply to a women who is forced against her will to have an abortion, or a women who is unsure about what an abortion is. But that exception only applies to a tiny minority of women who get abortions in the US. The vast majority of them know exactly what an abortion is and are choosing it of their own free will.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The vast majority of them know exactly what an abortion is and are choosing it of their own free will.
Click to expand...
I don’t think many women know that the unborn are human persons. I think many believe, as the political left is so often saying, “it’s just a clump of cells.”
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The vast majority of them know exactly what an abortion is and are choosing it of their own free will.
Click to expand...
I don’t think many women know that the unborn are human persons. I think many believe, as the political left is so often saying, “it’s just a clump of cells.”
Click to expand...
That does not matter to Canon 1398, which sets no requirement for whether the women believes the baby is human. The excommunication is automatic. Of course if the women is not Catholic, excommunication does not matter to her anyway.

In any case, changing the hearts and minds of pregnant women would be much more effective in stopping abortion than changing the hearts and minds of doctors, boyfriends, family, or legislators. Ignoring that golden opportunity to reduce abortions does not make sense.
 
What would be effective is having no abortionists. If abortion is illegal or restricted, there will be fewer abortionists. Fewer abortionists means fewer abortions.
 
JimG said:
What would be effective is having no abortionists.
Click to expand...
That would be very difficult to achieve by legislation alone. It is like saying that the most effective way to combat alcoholism is the have no alcohol. We tried that 1920. It did not go so well. We must address the demand for abortion before we can hope to control the supply.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Just to remind everyone what “procure” means, it includes “to obtain” . It also includes “to induce, or cause to take place.”
Click to expand...
I see your 1398 and raise you 1754 and 1793 and 1859:
1754 The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
Click to expand...
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
Click to expand...
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle said:
That most certainly includes both the women who seeks and obtains and abortion and the medical practioner who performs it.
Click to expand...
It does. But the knowledge and consent are very different between the two.
LeafByNiggle said:
Far from being the least culpable, the women who choses abortion is one of the most culpable individuals in an completed abortion. Of course this does not apply to a women who is forced against her will to have an abortion, or a women who is unsure about what an abortion is. But that exception only applies to a tiny minority of women who get abortions in the US. The vast majority of them know exactly what an abortion is and are choosing it of their own free will.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you recognize lack of consent is a factor. But “forcing” is more than just being dragged down to the abortionist, being threatened, or other overt acts by others. It includes societal pressures, such as career, educational, professional, or social pressures.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think women who get abortions are often quite culpable. But no where near as much as the doctors. I reject your assertion that women are one the most culpable. I think it impossible in nearly all cases. The abortionists are highly trained and know exactly what is happening in very deep detail. They also have the most free will in the act. Now both may be morally ignorant, perhaps one moreso than the other. But there’s no doubt who is more knowledgeable and has the most freedom.

Start with the most guilty.
 
Last edited:
Most physicians don’t want to be abortionists. The abortionists I have known of in my own state do not practice medicine. They do nothing but abortion, and do not have admitting privileges at any local hospital.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That does not matter to Canon 1398, which sets no requirement for whether the women believes the baby is human. The excommunication is automatic. Of course if the women is not Catholic, excommunication does not matter to her anyway.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of an out of context proof text. Read the rest of the Catechism, especially the sections on sin and conscience. Single paragraphs are not to be taken alone.
 
Suudy said:
I reject your assertion that women are one the most culpable.
Click to expand...
Changing the minds of those women is much more doable than changing the minds of the abortionists. If a women’s mind is changed, she does not get an abortion. If an abortionist’s mind is changed and he quits the practice, the women just goes and finds another abortionist. I still think the most fruitful way to address abortion is through the hearts and minds of the women, whose nature is to love their children anyway. The abortionist is just out to make money. He has no love for the baby. Changing his mind is harder, and less effective.
 
Not sure that the alcohol prohibition is a good comparison.
How about the fact that we have laws against murder, but we still have murders in the USA? Many bystanders are shot. Is there some way to reinstate duelling, perhaps?
 
27lw said:
Not sure that the alcohol prohibition is a good comparison.
Click to expand...
Why? Because it does not support your position?

Actually your murder analogy fails entirely for the simple reason that murder is almost universally recognized as a bad thing. And so laws against murder are accepted by society at large. But abortion and moderate alcohol consumption are not universally recognized by society as such a bad thing, and so until and unless that changes first, merely changing the law will likely turn out the way it did for prohibition.
 
Last edited:
It’s the same logic for legalizing all illegal and immoral acts. (If we change hearts people won’t commit murder or rape.) This doesn’t mean they should be legalized.
 
Even though we speak of abortion as “settled law.” let’s remember that in the U.S., no legislature established it; no citizens voted for it. It became law when 7 Justices on the SCOTUS decided to overturn the already existing abortion legislation of every state in the union.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
It’s the same logic for legalizing all illegal and immoral acts. (If we change hearts people won’t commit murder or rape.) This doesn’t mean they should be legalized.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say abortion should be legalized. I just said it will be very difficult to make it illegal if society at large does not almost universally see it as a bad thing. Murder and rape, on the other hand, are already universally recognized as bad things, so making them illegal is relatively doable. The few that do it anyway can be prosecuted and the society is behind that.
 
JimG said:
Even though we speak of abortion as “settled law.” let’s remember that in the U.S., no legislature established it; no citizens voted for it.
Click to expand...
That is true. But if they did have a chance to vote on it today, they would vote to keep it legal. This is unfortunate, and I wish it weren’t so.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Changing the minds of those women is much more doable than changing the minds of the abortionists.
Click to expand...
Even if we assume your premise of hearts and minds is more effective than legal means, I don’t agree. Telling women they are victims and not evil monsters is far more powerful. Your rigid reading of the Catechism does more to harden hearts, than does mine of offering them comfort and forgiveness.

But regardless, it isn’t an either/or solution. We can both go after the biggest abuser and support women.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is true. But if they did have a chance to vote on it today, they would vote to keep it legal. This is unfortunate, and I wish it weren’t so.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how people would vote. Let’s put it to a vote in each state.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I’m not in favor of telling them they are evil monsters. I am in favor of making childbirth a more attractive alternative.
Click to expand...
Attractive, yes. There is something that bothers me about making it monetarily attractive to have babies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top