Per 1 John 5:16 ... Should people pray for dead yet unrepentant pro-abortion advocates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptFun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CaptFun

Guest
Per 1 John 5:16 … Should people pray for dead yet unrepentant pro-abortion advocates?

> 1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.

The recent death of this very public person (and others like him) brought this conundrum to mind.

Retired U.S. Justice John Paul Stevens dies, leaving liberal legacy


Praying for departed souls seems unassailable and charitable. Although the Church usually puts it “souls of the FAITHFUL departed” in its official prayers.

Praying for a soul in Purgatory is likewise not only charitable but a spiritual work of mercy.

One CAN pray for Justice too. But perhaps always cautiously since we hope to receive more mercy than strict justice when WE are judged at the end of OUR lives. And AS we judge so are WE to be judged.

That last line will be or has been applied to the aforementioned Supreme Court Justice too.

Did he repent of giving power to those who dispatch the unborn (that GOD Himself was creating and probably had better plans for) before he died?

Or does all evidence point to the contrary? Though elevated to the heights of secular praise in some sectors … should his lifelong “stands” be those of a role model for the rest of us? Or maybe a cautionary tale.

There is an even Supremer Court.

Stevens may be there now. (Though not presiding as a Judge nor called “Justice”).

He is being celebrated greatly and missed by many here on Earth …

… has his “born again” status been confirmed yet? 🤔

… in his life he famously championed the right of those who would deny a “born in the first place” status to unborn babies guilty of nothing.

It’s fruitful if this headline causes us to pray for the repose of souls.

But I’m rather certain there are no pro-abortion souls in heaven.

EX-pro-abortion souls would be another matter.

We must be careful not to be “noisy gong - without charity” people as St. Paul warns.

But there are an awful lot of New Testament warnings, some of them attributed to Jesus Himself (and relating to our final judgement) for us to liberally dismiss them all and reason that … oh … everyone gets to be born again < not even true in THIS life … is it?
 
Just pray for the dead. We don’t know whether they were repentant at the end. Pray and leave it in God’s hands.

-Fr ACEGC
 
I think you should pray anyway because not everyone realises how serious abortion is. until I became Catholic I was pro choice and I thought in some situations abortion was ok. I didn’t really realise and so I wasn’t fully aware of how grave it is but was trying to follow God in other ways. It’s what you do once you know it’s wrong that matters
 
angel12 said:
How do we know they were unrepentant at the moment of death?
Click to expand...
We don’t. But some are. If they are and the sin is deadly … they would be in hell (where our prayers, though good for US to do, would not save the unrepentant soul).

With some people, their public lives are a testimony that goes opposite of Christ and all Church teaching … and even a rather public deathbed conversion would look like only the beginning of undoing the wrong they did in their lives per justice.

We don’t have St. John around in person anymore to know precisely what his " I don’t say one should pray about THAT … (deadly sins)" means and where it is applied.

But I did think of this famous Judge’s recent passing … and proposed the question. Some will pray for him … and I have no problem with that.

I will probably pray for so many others of my relatives, friends and acquaintances whose souls I hope repose now.
 
So are you saying that a US Supreme Court Judge should decide cases based on his or her Catholic beliefs and not the constitution and the law? If so, surely all Catholics should be barred from this office.
 
It is not really a good idea to judge who is in heaven and who is not. Praying for ANYONE is the charitable and compassionate thing to do, including unrepentant pro-abortion (or pro-choice) advocates. Judge not lest ye be judged.
 
FiveLinden said:
So are you saying that a US Supreme Court Judge should decide cases based on his or her Catholic beliefs and not the constitution and the law? If so, surely all Catholics should be barred from this office.
Click to expand...
There are many secular arguments so let’s not say things like that.
 
CaptFun said:
We don’t. But some are.
Click to expand...
Actually, you don’t even know that. But, let’s make that assumption. Even then, you don’t know which ones didn’t repent. Which makes it quite obvious that we should pray for them.
 
In private prayer you can pray for anyone. As long as the prayer is sincere.
 
Never try to judge who is in hell and who in purgatory. We know nothing about the extent of God’s mercy or the hearts of people in their secret final moments. Pray for all those who have died. Your prayers will be used by God in some way, perhaps not what you think. Prayer is never wasted.
 
FiveLinden said:
So are you saying that a US Supreme Court Judge should decide cases based on his or her Catholic beliefs and not the constitution and the law? If so, surely all Catholics should be barred from this office.
Click to expand...
I do not think anyone is saying that.

For a Catholic judge part of his duty would be precisely to make his judgements based on the law and the Constitution.

If he thought he could not in conscience do so, it would be his duty to resign at once rather than make judgements that conflict with the law he had sworn to uphold.
 
2d
It is not really a good idea to judge who is in heaven and who is not. Praying for ANYONE is the charitable and compassionate thing to do, including unrepentant pro-abortion (or pro-choice) advocates. Judge not lest ye be judged.
Click to expand...
/\ 3 sentences. 3 things. IMO 1. I agree 2. I agree 3. I agree.

Per 1 - Yet some ARE in heaven and some are not. Why? That’d be the difference between those saved (from their sins, and hell) and … not. So there is salvation (and … not) whether I do the judging or not. < An article of faith here that I adhere to, but did not make up.

Per 2 - beyond the charity of the thing … COULD it be EFFECTIVE? Your sentence here reminded me of some of the things said by the Blessed Mother according to Sr. Lucia, a visionary at the famous, and Church approved, appearances at Fatima in 1917.

In it - LACK of prayer for some souls is (at least part of) why they are in hell. WHAT the souls seen in the vision had DONE is not mentioned in the vision.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

The first part is the vision of hell.

(Lucia): We then looked up at Our Lady, who said to us so kindly and so sadly:

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. < A prophecy later fulfilled, Pius XI was not the Pope in 1917. To save them? Souls in DANGER of going to hell … or (even) some who are already there?

http://www.rosary-center.org/fatimams.htm

In August of 1917 Our Lady told the children, “pray much and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to make sacrifices for them.”

To address several complaints people might make about this: Both Mary and the faithful who pray … are part of the BODY of Christ (the HEAD) and so do not usurp salvation from HIM … they (we) are just channels by which Christ saves souls (from HELL … which exists … much to our occasional … or perpetual … consternation).

Presumably those IN hell have committed at least one unrepented of “deadly sin” and took it to their judgement.

St. John was probably talking about the living with his prayer for others counsel … but didn’t rule out praying for the repose of souls who’d passed on … yet did add his “I do not tell you to pray about THAT” < deadly sins > for reasons I still seek illumination on.

IMO, the Fatima message and the 1 John 5:16 counsel aren’t in conflict.
  1. Judge NOT. And yet … “Teach the nations …” sometimes giving warnings (prophets). Jesus warned people who judged others to look to themselves FIRST.
If fear of the consequences of sin gets some souls to the right side of the heaven (or NOT) line … it becomes a good thing. < Maybe not the BEST motivation though. 😇
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden:
Zaccheus said:
So are you saying that a US Supreme Court Judge should decide cases based on his or her Catholic beliefs and not the constitution and the law? If so, surely all Catholics should be barred from this office.
Click to expand...
I WASN’T saying that … but

I’m more comfortable putting it “If I were a Supreme Court Judge …” than the more obscure " … a Supreme court Judge should decide …" though.

MY Catholic beliefs might not always come into play

… but while “the constitution and the law” DO provide the basis for deciding SCOTUS cases

… the constitution and the law do not stand on their own either

… or there’d be no new cases to “decide”

… except for things so novel they weren’t covered by either the Constitution, its amendments or (established in previous SCOTUS cases) law.

Given a shot at it … I’d probably be instructed by my “Catholic beliefs” to overturn the Dred Scott decision if it ever came up again. It was ONCE found “constitutional” enough to stand … and was, for a while … “the law”.

Having demonstrated the sometimes VERY flawed nature of how “the Constitution” has been interpreted in the past … and the fact that unjust “laws” or “situations” come before the court that had not be previously settled … looking to God’s immutable laws and the counsel of the Church is NOT a “bad idea” to say the least IF one is looking to execute the BEST JUSTICE (and mercy) one can while in office.

It seems there may be a few people who have rendered judgements AGAINST their “Catholic beliefs” from the looks of things … but presuming that American Law and Church teachings are always (or even mostly) diametrically opposed to one another … and further that a Catholic judge must always choose the most exclusive version of “American Law” when it COULD then oppose Catholic teachings … is every bit as silly. MORE so IMO actually.

To be sure, the Court ought not demand strict adherence to the Catholic faith as the established religion of the land (some countries have).

If God gives a Supreme Court Justice the light of truth to guide them in a decision … that judge tightly closing his/her eyes and ruling opposite of that light … has not done his/her best, however much they might self-congratulate themselves on their supposed patriotism in rendering a secular decision.

After all … thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal … were commandments before they were American law (OR before there was an America).

Could in your opinion, a Supreme Court Judge decide cases based upon his or her (atheism, agnosticism, communism etc. etc.) and “not the constitution and the law”? IMO … probably yes. Yes they COULD and maybe have. These have not been barred from office (at least officially).

Catholics being barred from office, especially judgeships, is not merely theoretical either. Amy Coney Barrett , a Catholic judge also considered for the nomination Kavanaugh got, was badgered about her faith in Senate questioning.

BAD Judging OFF the Court there IMO.>

 
Interesting points of information, but it need not be so complicated. Let us not be so concerned with who is in heaven and who is not. Just pray for the dead (our job) and let G-d take care of the rest (His job).
 
One of those enemies repented and was told he’d go to Paradise.

He’s known as St. Dismas.

Yet there’s no St. Judas or Caiaphas. And the enemy on the remaining cross didn’t seem to repent, was also dead later that day … and isn’t depicted as in heaven. 🤔

Jesus’ prayer WAS probably answered in the affirmative … but some of the people he potentially saved did not avail themselves of that salvation, keep the covenant he offered, nor repented from their sins in time like St. Dismas.

Dismas had one heck of a ninth inning there … doing a public confession, saying he deserved capital punishment, proclaiming Jesus as a King at a moment when He was standing crucified with a wreath of thorns on his head, a satire sign mocking him and a jeering crowd that might have chucked a rock at Dismas. He was truly repentant … and ASKED … so he received. Though not instantly. His capital punishment went right to its end.

“Depart from me you evildoers …” gets said to some. And some of those complain saying “Lord, Lord … and enumerating certain GOOD works they’d " done in His name” … to no avail.

Equally surprised in that Matthew 25 chapter were the “sheep” who didn’t remember their good works but were saved because God did.

St. John’s “I do not say to pray for THAT …” (deadly sin) comes at the end of a paragraph URGING prayer for others.

🤔 - So I wonder. While prayer is good … could praying for the wrong things or having inverted priorities be like “casting one’s pearls before swine”?

Perhaps we should pray where it will do the MOST good instead of where it won’t do ANY good … not due to the prayer or its quality … but do to the obstinacy of the sinner and God’s refusal to violate their free will … and the principle of Justice which must be met (except that mercy and repentance cancels the Just debt).

🙂 - I LIKE you pro-prayer people. And am one myself. :roll_eyes: - Though not as good a one as I could be. 😬
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top