Is abortion a litmus test for someone to be a catholic?

[DanteAlighieri]

well actually you’re wrong there - that is precisely my point

Allow me to shed some light on the subject so you can no longer hide behind ignorance and petty words:

From the Catechism:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

And from Canon Law:

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

As I said above, this is a dogmatic element of our faith – which is to say that the faithful must adhere to it. Preaching against fellow Catholics for what you call “extremism” in the pro-life movement is not adherence – it’s sabotage.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

There are many “litmus tests” for someone to be a Catholic.

Can one be Catholic and reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Can one be Catholic and reject Transubstantiantion and the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

Can one be Catholic and reject the Church’s claim to the Kharisma of Infallibility?

As the quote from the Catechism indicates, to believe abortion is morally acceptable is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and is such a serious deviation that a person who holds that belief ought to pray for the grace to accept Catholic teaching.

 

[fix]

well actually you’re wrong there - that is precisely my point

1. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.132

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[cor]

I’ve been reading a little of Cardinal Martini’s opinions on abortion and the beginning of human life.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=51790&eng=y

He states that “the oocyte at the stage of two pronuclei” is not a new human life yet. He also states on abortion:

*That said, it seems to me that even on a painful topic like that of abortion (which, as you say, always represents a failure) it is difficult for a modern state not to intervene at least to prevent the situation from becoming lawless and arbitrary. And it seems to me that, in situations like ours, it would be difficult for the state not to create a distinction between acts punishable by law and acts which it is not convenient to punish by law. This does not at all mean a “license to kill,” but only that the state prefers not to intervene in all possible cases, but strives to reduce the number of abortions, to prevent them by all means possible, especially after a certain period of time after the beginning of pregnancy, and seeks to diminish as much as possible the causes of abortion and to demand precautions so that the woman who decides nevertheless to carry out this act, in particular in situations not punishable by law, will not be seriously injured or killed. This happens in particular, as you recall, in the case of clandestine abortions, and so all things considered it is a good thing that the law should contribute to reducing them, and eventually to eliminating them.

I understand that in Italy, with the existence of the National Health Services, this involves a certain cooperation in abortion on the part of the public structures. I see all the moral difficulty of this situation, but I would not know what to suggest at the moment, because any solution that might be sought would probably involve negative aspects.*

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=51790&eng=y

 

[fix]

I’ve been reading a little of Cardinal Martini’s opinions on abortion and the beginning of human life.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=51790&eng=y

That may be his private view but where can I see the Church says it is correct?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Allow me to shed some light on the subject so you can no longer hide behind ignorance and petty words

no ignorance on my part
you said that unlike other faiths opposition to abortion was a dogmatic part of the Catholic faith
the part that was incorrect was not the fact that the Catholic Church has a dogmatic opposition to abortion, but that other denominations in fact also do oppose abortion (the point I made in my earlier post)
so no ignorance on my part at all

Preaching against fellow Catholics for what you call “extremism” in the pro-life movement is not adherence – it’s sabotage

hmm, that’s another trait of extremists, labelling anyone who disagrees with their narrow interpretation the enemy

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

I think its collectively a women’s choice. This doesnt mean i support abortion but the fact that the supreme court, an governmental institution who had a large say in the abortion issue, demographically is more male than female is a problem. In other words because the process of going through a pregnancy is more than just merely ejaculating into a women’s ovum i think that it is crucial that womankind make the Ultimate decision on whether abortion should be legalized or not. Men should have some say but not to the same degree as women, because women have more invested in the issue physically, mentally, culturally, economically etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think its collectively a women’s choice.

And rape is collective a rapist’s choice

This doesnt mean i support abortion but the fact that the supreme court, an governmental institution who had a large say in the abortion issue, demographically is more male than female is a problem.

So armed robbers should decide whether killing their victims is legal, husbands should decide whether killing their wives is legal, and so on?

In other words because the process of going through a pregnancy is more than just merely ejaculating into a women’s ovum

I think you’re confused about how it all happens.

i think that it is crucial that womankind make the Ultimate decision on whether abortion should be legalized or not.

And armed robbers should decide whether killing their victims is legal, husbands should decide whether killing their wives is legal, and so on. Got it.

Men should have some say but not to the same degree as women, because women have more invested in the issue physically, mentally, culturally, economically etc.

Non-rapists should have some say but not to the same degree as rapists, because rapists have more invested in the issue physically, mentally, culturally, economically etc.

Justice is not served by giving the power of decision to someone who has a vested interest in the outcome. You would not allow a judge to sit on a case where he might make on lose millions based on his decisions, now would you?

 

[st_lucy]

I think its collectively a women’s choice.

Now what is it exactly is it that the woman is going to choose? No, really stop and think of that. You are okay with letting someone kill another, are you really willing to look the other away
will another is being slaughtered?

This doesnt mean i support abortion but the fact that the supreme court, an governmental institution who had a large say in the abortion issue, demographically is more male than female is a problem.

I really don’t understand what you mean here. So since there are more males than females we should allow the few females around to kill other males and females?

In other words because the process of going through a pregnancy is more than just merely ejaculating into a women’s ovum i think that it is crucial that womankind make the Ultimate decision on whether abortion should be legalized or not.

So because the woman does more work she has the right to kill someone else. Is that right? Please explain.

Men should have some say but not to the same degree as women, because women have more invested in the issue physically, mentally, culturally, economically etc.

So your saying that men don’t have very much at stake when a child is brought into this world. I wonder why my husband stays up late trying to figure out how he is going to get his family through to the next pay period, or why he is spending all that time away from his children working on his second job. Maybe you should explain to him this new theory of yours.

So maybe when my children get on my nerves (not that, that ever happens ) I have the right to do away with them because I am the woman and all my husband did was provide the sperm he has absolutly no say. Yeah that makes sense.

You see no matter what the goverment has said, common sense says that abortion is murder. And those poor mothers who are killing their own children are suffering for it and all those who say it is the womans choice set around and watch them suffer… All those who say that they would never have an abortion but support the pro-choice movement is just as much involved with the mass murder that is happening everyday at the abortion mills. Remember that abortion is always MURDER.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you saying that men don’t have very much at stake when a child is brought into this world. I wonder why my husband stays up late trying to figure out how he is going to get his family threw to the next pa period, or why he is spending all that time away from his children working on his second job.

I have two daughters and two granddaughters. The person who says I don’t have much at stake in my children and grandchildren should take care not to say it within arm’s reach of me – lest he be reminded of that fine old Irish proverb, “There’s many a man whose mouth has broken his nose.”

 

[st_lucy]

I have two daughters and two granddaughters. The person who says I don’t have much at stake in my children and grandchildren should take care not to say it within arm’s reach of me – lest he be reminded of that fine old Irish proverb, “There’s many a man whose mouth has broken his nose.”

That was my thought also. My husband works so hard for his children, I would challange anyone to state other wise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That was my thought also. My husband works so hard for his children, I would challange anyone to state other wise.

It would be an act of charity to advise them not to say it where we can get our hands on them.

 

[Ilroy]

yes, no fanatic ever thinks their fanaticism is not justified, and all Christian fanatics think they are doing God’s will
and you differ how exactly?

So, because you can give ZERO examples you resort to more name calling and putting down those of us who actually care about human life. And BTW I said “trying to do God’s will”
Don’t misquote me!

 

[CCM08]

The idea that women have more at stake than men in bringing children into the world has obviously never dealt with the stormtroopers in the “family courts” and their collection agencies. Not to mention that the current desire of these bodies is to extend this treatment well past the age of the child’s majority, radical women’s groups want to see child support go until 23 and some as late as 27.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It is God’s right and only God’s right to say when we are born and are to die. IMHO this is a necessary belief for all Christians.

 

[Sheeniac]

no ignorance on my part
you said that unlike other faiths opposition to abortion was a dogmatic part of the Catholic faith
the part that was incorrect was not the fact that the Catholic Church has a dogmatic opposition to abortion, but that other denominations in fact also do oppose abortion (the point I made in my earlier post)

Many of our Prot brothers and sisters are opposed to abortion. However, I think the point is that they really don’t have dogma to contend with, and their opinions (at a denominational level) can change over time. We see this with birth control, homosexual marriage, etc. Happily, most Christians are anti-abortion, but not all are, With “personal interpretation” being the closest they have to dogma, this too can change.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The idea that women have more at stake than men in bringing children into the world has obviously never dealt with the stormtroopers in the “family courts” and their collection agencies. Not to mention that the current desire of these bodies is to extend this treatment well past the age of the child’s majority, radical women’s groups want to see child support go until 23 and some as late as 27.

There is now a move afoot in some states, which began in New Mexico, to “ratify” the Equal Rights Amendment. Now, the ERA is dead and “ratifying” it won’t bring it back. So why do it?

Because it will furnish ammunition for the pro-abortion forces to overturn all restrictions on abortion in that state.

But there’s glitch. It’s the Equal Rights Amendment. If women can have abortions, so can men.

What do you call a man who has had an abortion? A dead-beat dad!! If a woman can walk away from her parenthood, so can a man.

 

[jack_hawkins]

So, because you can give ZERO examples you resort to more name calling and putting down those of us who actually care about human life. And BTW I said “trying to do God’s will”
Don’t misquote me!

I can give plenty of examples - and I am not name calling and putting down those who actually care about human life - I am putting down the fanatics who actually are “pro-death”. I am totally pro-life - I am for the mother’s right to live when she has an ectopic pregnancy unlike the “pro-life/pro-death” fanatics. That’s one example, there would also be the situation of a grave threat to the mother’s life during pregnancy.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Many of our Prot brothers and sisters are opposed to abortion. However, I think the point is that they really don’t have dogma to contend with, and their opinions (at a denominational level) can change over time. We see this with birth control, homosexual marriage, etc. Happily, most Christians are anti-abortion, but not all are, With “personal interpretation” being the closest they have to dogma, this too can change.

That’s a very flimsy claim to superiority, that the term “dogma” is not used in Protestant denominations. If that makes you happy, I’m glad for you.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

And rape is collective a rapist’s choice

So armed robbers should decide whether killing their victims is legal, husbands should decide whether killing their wives is legal, and so on?

Yea but the victim and the robber are two seperate indviduals the pregnant mother is more ambigiuous. The point i was trying to make about womankind is that we always hear stories about women who were coerce to get an abortion by a male or they were threaten to go through with the pregnancy. Of course a father has great influence on the development of their child but a father cant empathize with what it means to be pregnant. Their decision to have children is important but the femals decision when to have children is more important because they have to go through the physical exercision.