On whether being "Pro-Choice" and "Catholic" are mutually exclusive

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But that position cannot hold water. We know that to take the life of an innocent human being is evil. No matter how wants to sugar coats it truth remains truth.
Now if one wants to be relativistic about it by all means, the reality is that “Catholics” are also divided in categories. Some will accept the teachings of Jesus handed down through His representatives here on Earth, (the Church) and those who don’t.
This is nothing new, throughout the ages there have been present in the Church. In the end Jesus will judge and render to each his/her due.
As it is written:
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and perform many powerful deeds in your name?’
Matthew 7:23 And then will I disclose to them: ‘I have never known you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity.’

Now trying to equate the “pro-choice” yes you can kill an innocent with the “pro-choice” of yes you can kill a heretic is a non starter.

A heretic is not an “innocent” person rather a very dangerous one that can damn many people, who can be “converted” because of him/her.

So in conclusion many people call themselves “Catholics” but are not
same as many people call themselves “Christians” and are not. If we care to expand the vision to all of humanity we will find similar things going on in all religions since they are made up of humans and looks like we all suffer from the same issues more or less.
 
Ana_v said:
  • Consider St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument for tolerating prostitution
  • Consider St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument for the execution of heretics
Relate them to the title of my post:
“On whether being “Pro-Choice” and “Catholic” are mutually exclusive”

Can someone be Catholic and be Pro-Choice in regards to heresy? e.g. that heretics should be free to be heretics without incurring penalty of law (death).

Even though heresy is a moral evil traditionally regarded as murder of the soul (in that sense worse than murder of the body).
Click to expand...
Thank you @Ana_v for a nuanced post. It’s very refreshing to see this sort of thing around here. I, like you, consider myself to have made important distinctions in this debate.

If I understand St Thomas Aquinas reasoning for not legislating against prostitution, it is basically an argument from prudence. Is that right? If so, then possibly a more proper moral analogy to contemporary society would be that of gay marriage. A Catholic could affirm, going along with the natural law understanding of the Church, that gay marriage is to some degree “missing the mark” (sinful). But, would prudence suggest that we not try to legislate a prohibition against it? Possibly…

I will leave aside the analogy to heresy, as I do not believe the soul can be murdered (also, in a society defined by separation of church and state, it does not seem that any such practice could be plausible–penalty of law for heretics).

But where the analogy seems to break down, as others here have pointed out, is that in an abortive act, there is a victim (the baby). And the victim is deprived of the most basic of all rights–the right to life. In prostitution, there is victimhood in various senses, but none of that victimhood rises to the level of depriving one of life, does it? That seems to make the two (prostitution and abortion) fundamentally disanalogous.
 
This isn’t as nuanced as you’re making it out to be. Abortion is inherently evil. This isn’t about “I’m personally against theft, but should it be against the law?” No. This is much worse. This is more accurately, “I’m personally against the holocaust, but should genocide be against the law?” There is absolutely 0 wiggle room. If you allow people to commit gravely evil acts, you are aiding the murder of millions of innocents.
 
This thread bears a striking similarity to another I have been reading.
40.png
Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes World News
[Beto%20just%20another%20pro-abort%20politician] Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes Joshua Caplan 18 Mar 2019 Breitbart News . . . . ATTENDEE: Are you for third-trimester abortions or are you going to protect the lives of third-trimester babies? Because, you know, there’s really not a medical necessity for abortion. It’s not a medical emergency procedure, because typically, third-trimester abortions take up to three days to have, so in that sense,…
Click to expand...
The answer here is no. You may not be in favor of abortion and at the same time a good Catholic.
 
“Pro” choice and Catholic are definitely mutually exclusive. There is some debate about whether abortion should be a criminal offence under the secular law; but if a Catholic doesn’t believe it is a grave sin, they’re dissenting and heterodox (if not openly defiant and a heretic).
 
Last edited:
Some people take more nuanced views with regards to white supremacy.

Some people take more nuanced views with regards to child molestation.

Some people take more nuanced views with regards to wife beating.

They are wrong too in their rejection of moral absolutes.
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
Being Pro-choice for prostitution is actually better, because it reduces the amount of prostitution related deaths by making it legal. When prostitutes are abused, they can’t go to the police, because they themselves will be convicted of a crime. By making it legal, it makes it safer. I’m not supporting prostitution, but the safety of women.
Click to expand...
You are giving a rationale for being pro-choice with regards to prostitution.

But my question isn’t about whether there are good or justifiable reasons to be pro-choice in regards to prostitution or abortion. Rather, whether being pro-choice and Catholic are mutually exclusive.

The Church regards prostitution as a grave evil (moral teaching) However, it is not clear to me whether it takes a stance on the question of whether it should be legal or illegal (prudential judgement).

However, if we turn our attention to pornography as the analogy, the Church teaches that it is gravely evil (moral teaching) and, the Catechism specifically, promotes the view that pornograpahy should not be legal (prudential judgment):

“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties… It is a grave offense. **Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.” (CCC 2354)

So, I could just as well start a thread with the title: “One whether being Pro-Choice (with respect to pornograpahy) and Catholic are mutually exclusive”.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Some people take more nuanced views with regards to white supremacy.

Some people take more nuanced views with regards to child molestation.

Some people take more nuanced views with regards to wife beating.

They are wrong too in their rejection of moral absolutes.
Click to expand...
The Church takes a nuanced view when it distinguishes between “direct” and “indirect” abortion.

Nuances are important and perfectly fine when the aim is truth. Sometimes they’re annoying, but they’re useful and an important element in any discussion which aims to understand the opposing viewpoint.

Pro-choice people fall into two categories:

Those who believe abortion is immoral.

Those who believe abortion is not immoral.

Proceed the conversation accordingly.
 
Last edited:
I guess what my question would be is what kind of things do you believe should be outlawed? What is your measure on how immoral something is before it should be outlawed?
 
The reason the Church opposes abortion is because it destroys innocent human lives. The only way a sincere Catholic can be pro-abortion is in a Luke 23:34 kind of way.
 
Ana_v . . .
The Church takes a nuanced view when it distinguishes between “direct” and “indirect” abortion.
Click to expand...
“Abortion” is used in a number of ways.

Old terminology even called miscarriages an “abortion”.

This kind of thing or an excision of an early ectopic pregnancy with no intention to kill the baby is NOT what anybody is talking about here.

We need to be clear here.

The concern, is an elective so-called therapeutic abortion.

And that is an intrinsic evil.

So you cannot nuance that.

If the action is intrinsically evil, it is inappropriate to appeal to . . . “situation ethics”.

Elective abortions are intrinsically evil.
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
“Pro” choice and Catholic are definitely mutually exclusive. There is some debate about whether abortion should be a criminal offence under the secular law; but if a Catholic doesn’t believe it is a grave sin, they’re dissenting and heterodox (if not openly defiant and a heretic).
Click to expand...
@Neithan

You are stating in your own words the very same point I made earlier…except that for some reason, when I said it, it was controversial.

You say: “There is some debate about whether abortion should be a criminal offense…”

Yes, that’s exactly right. There is debate about what the legal status of abortion should be. The people who do not think we should make abortion illegal or criminalize it call themselves “pro choice”. This doesn’t in and of itself tell us what they think about the morality of abortion. It only tells us what they think the government’s role should be.

You say: “But if a Catholic doesn’t believe it’s a grave sin, they’re dissenting and heterodox…”

Correct.

See my earlier post for reference:
Ana_v said:
Where I differ is that I would not consider a person who is Catholic and pro choice to be “not really a Catholic”
unless they hold the view that the Church is wrong about it’s teaching of abortion (i.e. they believe abortion is morally good, morally neutral, or morally permissible).

If they don’t think the Church is wrong, then this is not a matter of heresy or “error of belief” concerning the morality of an act (abortion).

Their error of belief concerns the philosophy of law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I was simply pointing out, by using an example (the Church’s distinction between “direct” vs. “indirect” abortion) that we need not demonize the use of nuances. Sometimes nuances are necessary for the sake of clarity…and charity.

It’s not wrong to distinguish between different types of pro-choice people.
 
“pro-choice people” Ana_v, are not working to help keep tubal resections during ectopic pregnancies available.

“pro-choice people” are working to destroy the fabric of our society by RE-DEFINING certain persons as LESS THAN persons.

If you (not “you” personally) are a typical pro-abortionist, you are working to redefine preborn babies as less than persons and allow for their elective premediated murder.

If you are a typical pro-abortion New York politician you are working to redefine preborn babies AND babies that are BEING BORN as less than persons and allow for their elective premediated murder.

If you are Peter Singer, you are working to redefine preborn babies AND babies that are BEING BORN and babies that HAVE BEEN BORN AND are up to SIX MONTHS OLD (formerly Dr. Singer said two YEARS old, but he has changed that since) as less than persons and allow for their elective premediated murder.

If you are Democrat Governor Ralph Northam, you are working to allow aborted babies born alive to just wait it out until they die.

That means to put a live baby in a plastic bag and toss it away alive (in some cases). Or in other cases it means putting it in a bucket, and placing the living baby in the refrigerator while it may be crying. (But the big concern about Ralph is if he is sorry enough for possibly doing “black face” when he was younger).

There is no “nuancing” here Ana_v by the Church. These are intrinsic evils.
 
Last edited:
Pro-Choice (or my preferred term, Anti-Life) and Automatic Excommunication are not mutually exclusive.

That said, I do think Democrats could do far worse than Nacy Pelosi who herself has raised several children. Perhaps she rationalizes publicly projecting pro-choice sentiment to retain her position whereas if it wasn’t her a real degenerate might be in her place.
 
Last edited:
There is a range of possible laws upholding the right to life of the unborn (assuming for the moment that there is such a right).

At one end of the range is a law saying that anyone who procures or provides an abortion or provides or uses contraception active after a zygote is formed commits a crime and is subject to active attempts to deter, detect and punish severely. At the other end is a declaratory statement which outlaws nothing but defines the unborn and their right to life as a sort of ideal. In between are the many variations produced by the conflict between life and choice activists, allowing this, but banning that.

Catholics, in practice, seem to support the most restrictive laws along that spectrum and will therefore often actively support laws which provide for some abortions, or even many abortions. Catholics never seem to promote laws at the most extreme end of the spectrum, even though such a law is directly in line with Catholic belief. Practical restriction of abortion is preferred to witnessing to their actual belief. Catholics rarely, for example, openly campaign to prevent children raped by their fathers to be prevented by law from obtaining an abortion, even though in Catholic thought that is every bit as bad as an abortion undertaken to allow a holiday to go ahead.

Catholics also usually don’t argue for the criminalisation of contraception they consider as abortion. Instead they argue to restrict supply.

I on’t know of any politician anywhere in the world who has ever proposed a law which entirely encompasses the Catholic position. Every politician advocates something else.
 
From a purely technical standpoint, if you are baptized into the Catholic Church, you are a Catholic.

If you then go around supporting some sinful practice, whether it’s abortion, pornography, burglary, converting to Protestantism, or skipping Mass on most Sundays, you’re simply a sinful Catholic, or perhaps a confused and struggling and misguided and wrong Catholic.

The vast majority of Catholics disagree with some Church teaching or policy. Could be they disagree with the teaching on abortion, or could be they disagree with whatever Pope Francis did last week. They’re still Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone ask the fetus?

If you’re comparing the fetus to heretics, tell me, what sin has the fetus committed which is deserving of death?

If you’re comparing the fetus to tolerating prostitution, are we now tolerating our unborn children rather than loving them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top