I'm socially liberal; is there room in Catholicism for me?

[choose_to_love]

“where do you draw the line” Regarding abortion, this is not really a religious issue, per se, at least in the USA. Science demonstrates that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a member of the human species, so, I suggest, the question is really personhood, which is not strictly speaking a scientific question; put another way, science answers the question of whether the z/e/f is human in the affirmative. See, for example, atheists for life, or Nat Hentoff, who, I think by definition, do not base their pro-life position on a religious belief.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It would be best to solve those difficulties before joining. From the initial post it doesn’t look like abortion is actually a problem.

 

[Flopfoot]

My position is more about attitudes than activism. Some people live in countries which allow abortions and they feel their hands are tied and that there is no point for them to oppose those laws, but that is not the same thing as approving of those laws in their own mind

I don’t have the quote on hand but Aquinas did talk a bit about translating moral rules into laws. The two things I would put forward in favour of abortion being illegal even in a secular country are that 1. It’s opposed to the natural law - anyone with the ability to reason should be able to figure out its bad without the help of divine revelation and 2. It affects other people (i.e. the unborn baby) so the state should make laws to protect that person even if it puts restrictions on what other people can do

 

[HopkinsReb]

What is the church’s teachings on using it for medical reasons? I have a medical condition that is only kept under control by artificial estrogen, which happens to be the pill.

So this is where you have to understand the Catholic Church’s view of the person to get what’s going on.

Contraceptives are licit but only when they are used as medicine – that is, to correct some health problem. Pregnancy is not a health problem; it is a normal function of the female body. So the pill cannot be used to prevent pregnancy, but it can be used to address actual medical problems.

Consider a similar example: a hysterectomy to treat a disease is licit, even though it renders a woman infertile, but a hysterectomy done in order to render a woman infertile is not.

 

[Wesrock]

giddyromilly:

What is the church’s teachings on using it for medical reasons? I have a medical condition that is only kept under control by artificial estrogen, which happens to be the pill.

So this is where you have to understand the Catholic Church’s view of the person to get what’s going on.

Contraceptives are licit but only when they are used as medicine – that is, to correct some health problem. Pregnancy is not a health problem; it is a normal function of the female body. So the pill cannot be used to prevent pregnancy, but it can be used to address actual medical problems.

Consider a similar example: a hysterectomy to treat a disease is licit, even though it renders a woman infertile, but a hysterectomy done in order to render a woman infertile is not.

Right. To be a bit more specific in terminology, using drugs for the purpose of contracepting is illicit, but using drugs for the purpose of treating a legitimate medical condition – even if it has a side effect of temporary sterility – is licit. Some drugs we call commonly call “contraceptives” can be used for legitimate medical reasons beyond contracepting. The drug is just a drug, not immoral in itself. It’s what we choose to use it for that matters.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

giddyromilly:

What is the church’s teachings on using it for medical reasons? I have a medical condition that is only kept under control by artificial estrogen, which happens to be the pill.

So this is where you have to understand the Catholic Church’s view of the person to get what’s going on.

Contraceptives are licit but only when they are used as medicine – that is, to correct some health problem. Pregnancy is not a health problem; it is a normal function of the female body. So the pill cannot be used to prevent pregnancy, but it can be used to address actual medical problems.

Consider a similar example: a hysterectomy to treat a disease is licit, even though it renders a woman infertile, but a hysterectomy done in order to render a woman infertile is not.

Right. To be a bit more specific in terminology, using drugs for the purpose of contracepting is illicit, but using drugs for the purpose of treating a legitimate medical condition – even if it has a side effect of temporary sterility – is licit. Some drugs we call commonly call “contraceptives” can be used for legitimate medical reasons beyond contracepting. The drug is just a drug, not immoral in itself. It’s what we choose to use it for that matters.

Yeah, I suppose the clearest way to put it is that contraceptive drugs are not what the Church has a problem with. The act of deliberately contracepting is.

 

[giddyromilly]

Thank you both! That makes complete sense.

 

[Brendan_64]

In another thread I hashed out my decision to become a Catholic, but I also expressed my hesitancy and concern with a few policies the church holds that I find hard to support.

Are you looking to find a church that fits with your own existing views? If so then is that not looking at things upside down? Should you not look to find the one true Church founded by Christ and then try to conform your views to those of the true Church?

If we look to find a church that conforms to our own views then what is the point? Are we looking for confirmation thst we are right? Why not accept that we may be wrong and have ourselves challenged by working to conform our views to those of the true Church?

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Top Ten Things Said Before Disaster!

 

[HopkinsReb]

giddyromilly:

In another thread I hashed out my decision to become a Catholic, but I also expressed my hesitancy and concern with a few policies the church holds that I find hard to support.

Are you looking to find a church that fits with your own existing views? If so then is that not looking at things upside down? Should you not look to find the one true Church founded by Christ and then try to conform your views to those of the true Church?

If we look to find a church that conforms to our own views then what is the point? Are we looking for confirmation thst we are right? Why not accept that we may be wrong and have ourselves challenged by working to conform our views to those of the true Church?

I get where you’re coming from, but “just agree with the Church” is not, in my opinion, a particularly effective way to bring a non-Catholic into the Catholic Church.

 

[HeDa]

It is one thing to say that one doesn’t agree with the Church when knowing what the Church teaches. It is a totally different thing to not know and understand everything that the Church teaches and not agreeing. One way of expressing it could be: “I don’t understand it yet but I am learning more about it.”

Learning more about how the Church talks and writes about the human being as becoming human in relationship to other humans, that we are a unity of two as husband and wife, we are our history and not separated from relatives and events that took place when we were little or before we were born. The human being exists in relationships and not as an item as the secular world tend to see her. This is very clear when it comes to babies in the womb.

Pope John Paul II wrote Mulieris Dignitatem On the dignity and vocation of women. Read it slowly as he has a beautiful way of expressing himself. There is lots of wisdom on every page.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...f_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

 

[giddyromilly]

Are you looking to find a church that fits with your own existing views? If so then is that not looking at things upside down? Should you not look to find the one true Church founded by Christ and then try to conform your views to those of the true Church?

That’s a good point! I’ve been secular for many years, so old habits die hard. I didn’t mean to be irreverent.

 

[giddyromilly]

It is one thing to say that one doesn’t agree with the Church when knowing what the Church teaches. It is a totally different thing to not know and understand everything that the Church teaches and not agreeing. One way of expressing it could be: “I don’t understand it yet but I am learning more about it.”

Great point! I really don’t understand, but I hope to keep learning. I will definitely read this!

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Spend more time in prayer and dive more deeply into the teachings of the church in the areas you don’t want to follow.

Being a Christian is countercultural and it requires sacrifice. The teachings on sexuality, contraception, and abortion are not arbitrary and should not be set aside simply because they don’t fit with our own will. The goal is to discern God’s will and unite ourselves to that. The church is the pillar and bulwark of truth according to scripture. It is essential in our efforts to discern God’s will.

 

[HeDa]

Once you understand who the human being is, it all becomes very clear why the Church teaches what she teaches and believes what she believes.

 

[phujosh]

There is plenty of room for you. Speaking from my real experience, the loving arms of Christ are perpetually wide open for anyone longing for Him as he longs for you!

 

[Aquinas11]

I think abortion is a travesty, but I lay more blame at the feet of those who make women feel as if there is no other choice but to abort

Just my personal thoughts. I never understood the “make women feel” narrative since it implies women are passive actors whose thoughts are easily programmed (no moral agency) which contradicts that women are strong and independent actors (full moral agency). Yet I frequently read both in the same narrative. Both can’t be true.

This conflict seems to be source of much of the confusion between Catholic teaching (embraces men and women having full moral agency) and modern world (embraces this seeming contradictory narrative).

 

[Brendan_64]

I get where you’re coming from, but “just agree with the Church” is not, in my opinion, a particularly effective way to bring a non-Catholic into the Catholic Church.

I’m saying that if a person accepts that it is the true Church, then it follows that what it teaches is true. Therefore even though a person may struggle with some teachings, working to try to conform one’s views to that of the Church (even if this takes time and does not happen initially). I’m not saying, “just agree with the Church”, I’m saying that striving over time to agree with the Church is part of our ongoing process of conversion (all of us).

 

[Flopfoot]

There is a danger of someone flipping the argument on its head. This is when someone initially agrees with a premise, but then disbelieves the conclusion more strongly than they believe the premise, and so ends up disbelieving the premise.

E.g. “what the church teaches is true”
“ok”
“therefore X is wrong”
“but I believe X is right, therefore what the church teaches isn’t true”

However if the person does want to believe that what the church teaches is true they’re less likely to be scared off by any particular teachings and take this route

 

[Bradskii]

Just a quick question: What does everyone think is the percentage of Catholics which accept ALL teachings of the church?