Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sbee0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheLittleLady said:
Nothing, not sin or death or principalities or powers can remove the indelible mark of Baptism from a Christian. Yes, there are non-practicing Catholics and fallen away Christians, Christians who have apostatized, they are STILL Christians.
Click to expand...
Okay, so what are the implications of their STILL being Christian?

They are not Christian in belief, or action, or disposition, or morality, or practice, so what does their being Christian imply or involve, exactly?

You likely will insist there is an indelible mark on their soul or being.

Okay, so does that mean they are more or less culpable with regard to their choices?
 
TheLittleLady said:
Nothing, not sin or death or principalities or powers can remove the indelible mark of Baptism from a Christian. Yes, there are non-practicing Catholics and fallen away Christians, Christians who have apostatized, they are STILL Christians.
Click to expand...
I know the church doesn’t do this anymore but in theory what about those who are cursed by anathema? The old excommunication rite is a declaration that you are separated from the Body and Blood of Christ so technically one could say they may not be a Christian?
 
Most of that list is baloney and you know it. That’s what it takes to be a good Catholic, but not to be Catholic or to call oneself Catholic. Once baptized Catholic (or enters through RCIA) one is Catholic, there is no other requirement to be Catholic or call oneself Catholic. You don’t have to be a good Catholic to be Catholic.

And that part about seeking recompense for abuse being spiritual suicide is just plain wrong (and frankly is an attitude that helps enable these predatory priests and their protectors in the hierarchy).
 
Last edited:
I could say almost the exact same things about the Democratic Party!
Regardless, the church has been very clear on its position regarding the evils of abortion. Supporting a Saint even, who supports abortion and would vote to legalize abortion and increase ease of access to abortion which no democrat is by the way, is condemned.
 
HarryStotle said:
You likely will insist there is an indelible mark on their soul or being.
Click to expand...
“I” don’t insist on it, the Church does:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

An indelible spiritual mark . . .

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark ( character ) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship.84 The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.85

[1274] The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) "for the day of redemption."86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."87 The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.
HarryStotle said:
Okay, so does that mean they are more or less culpable with regard to their choices?
Click to expand...
Culpability depends on the formation of conscience. Only God can truly judge a persons culpability.
 
TheLittleLady said:
[1274] The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) "for the day of redemption."86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."87 The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life “marked with the sign of faith,” with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.
Click to expand...
So we can then distinguish between a Christian and “a faithful Christian who has kept the seal until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism” and not broken it, yes?
 
That isn’t what the Catholic Church tells people when they ask to be removed from the rolls. Just saying. You can’t have it both ways.
 
Padres1969 said:
Most of that list is baloney and you know it. That’s what it takes to be a good Catholic, but not to be Catholic or to call oneself Catholic. Once baptized Catholic (or enters through RCIA) one is Catholic, there is no other requirement to be Catholic or call oneself Catholic. You don’t have to be a good Catholic to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
Just a small technical point but the Catechism doesn’t use the term Catholic regarding the indelible mark, it uses the term Christian.

That may be significant regarding your point, no?
TheLittleLady said:
[1274] The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) "for the day of redemption."86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."87 The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.
Click to expand...
 
All baptized Catholics are Christians. I’m bowing out as you and I cannot communicate on the same wavelength.
 
Annie said:
I think there are other factors at play here. One is that sex is seen at a leisure activity rather than as a life-creating/life-changing activity.
Click to expand...
It is a leisurely activity for many people. Many people who have no problem with that. I never understand why Catholic people believe other people should subscribe to their beliefs and values. This is a social issue. And if 96% of the population have no problem with birth control, I find it pretty outrageous for some Catholics to thinks they should be setting a different policy for everyone. Fine to preach to fellow Catholics what you believe. But then leave it alone. It’s really none of your business with respect to the general population.
 
Last edited:
Not really. The RCCs stance has always been that once Catholic Always Catholic, not just Christian. As someone else said, can’t have it both ways.
 
I was describing the root of the problem of abortion.

We.look back on people who thought slavery was all right and wonder what they could possibly have been thinking. Even secular atheists think slavery is wrong.

One day the same will be true for abortion.
 
I think they use medicine and anti-bacterial drugs to prevent the disease from spreading. I also read an article where they would do something to the newborns so they wouldn’t carry the disease if their mother had it. So if this is all true then contraceptives aren’t really a solution that people make it out to be.
 
The link you reference says that in order to be Catholic, and I quote,

“he must financially support his parish. He who seeks financial compensation from the church on the grounds of abuse, he commits spiritual suicide.”

Putting aside that your link is not an official Catholic site, that requirement would seemingly preclude abused Catholics from obtaining recompense from the abusers parish (and presumably diocese, etc…) by claiming doing so is somehow “spiritual suicide”. That is a form of enablement as it removes a punitive action that is necessary to punish the church for the actions it’s allowing under its roof.
 
There are a lot of expenses for a parish.
 
Last edited:
And? Not sure your response is germaine to the point I’m making…
 
The assertion that “life” begins at conception and therefore a “person” with full human rights exists at that point doesn’t work in practice though.

Certain forms of cancer have unique DNA. They are not people. So “unique DNA” cannot be the determining factor.

After birth, some of the infant’s stem cells continue circulating in the mother. I have two siblings. Is my mother therefore four people? If some of my cells are still in my mother, am I a person apart from my mother?
 
Your point is more of an abuse of the precept than the original intent and purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top