Pro Choice Catholic?

[Pilosopo]

I wonder if there are any, and if they will own up.

A “pro-choice” Catholic is the most pitiable of creatures, for he/she cannot claim ignorance of the divinely-revealed teaching on abortion as, perhaps, others may be able to do. That places them in particularly hot water, as it were.

I was pro-abortion (let’s be honest here) when I was younger, for the most obvious of reasons - sex without consequences seemed like a wonderful god before which to bow down.

I think theoretically, consistent, too, to Catholic catechism, is that there can be a pro-choice Catholic. If an individual is a Catholic and has an erroneous conscience and believes that pro-choice is truly a moral or morally neutral position, then there you have it, a pro-choice Catholic.
I grew up staunchly Catholic in traditions and belief… evening rosaries, patron saint processions, daily masses quite consistently from elementary days to early college… and I always held that abortion is immoral, and still do. But I hesitate to take on a clarion cry that makes abortion rights advocates as pathetic ignorant enemies. The talk about a culture war? – I doubt is helpful.
Abortion is immoral. However, I am also realizing that there is a genuine complexity to women or families that struggle with an unwanted pregnancy – pregnancies that could be dangerous, present a degree of injustice and trauma. Okay, I’ll state again, abortion is immoral. But I do not think compassion is misplaced when a mother takes on a fairly aberrant consideration to abort her own child. (I don’t think it just comes down or almost always comes down to sexual promiscuity.)
The heat and emotionalism that comes with the political aspect of the pro-life and pro-choice debate seem to drag down my image of the Church as shepherd to all.
When does a Catholic cease to be Catholic? … well, let’s think core Catholic tenets of faith, as from the Apostle’s Creed… adherence to moral teachings… and yet there are good Catholics and bad Catholics… so when do the bad Catholics stop becoming Catholic? I’m confused, sorry. But think some of what I say makes sense.

 

[Corki]

Sacred?

A person is protected because the state can see that it is evidently a person, and the state see’s that it is pragmatically beneficial to protect people.

This is a circular argument. The only reason the state can “see” that a person is “evidently” a person after birth is because **the state **has defined it that way. The state could just as easily make a “personhood” determination based on viability, on the capability of independent thought or on any other criteria.

 

[snarflemike]

I think theoretically, consistent, too, to Catholic catechism, is that there can be a pro-choice Catholic. If an individual is a Catholic and has an erroneous conscience and believes that pro-choice is truly a moral or morally neutral position, then there you have it, a pro-choice Catholic.

One with a grotesquely deformed conscience, which is itself a sin. No Catholic can possibly claim that the Church does not teach that abortion is a grave sin. So to allow your your conscience to be formed in opposition to such clear teaching is itself, as I said, a sin for which the person is responsible.

 

[markeverett49]

Because it cannot be proven in a legal context that abortion is in fact the killing of a person; not according to legal/secular definitions of what a person is, as opposed to religious or speculative definitions. .

I disagree. Justice Blackmun (-author of the majority opinion in Roe vs Wade) made clear that the Supreme Court considers a human being to be a person. He held that abortion could only be allowed when the humanity of the fetus was in doubt. But the humanity of the fetus is NOT in doubt, from conception onward, and this is the consensus of embryologists. Now, of course, abortion is part of the fabric of American life and the Roe decision is almost 40 years old. The rationale for Roe is long gone but the practice remains and the thinking seems to be, “it’s better not to think about it.”

I think this the height of un-reason.

 

[markeverett49]

This is a circular argument. The only reason the state can “see” that a person is “evidently” a person after birth is because **the state **has defined it that way. The state could just as easily make a “personhood” determination based on viability, on the capability of independent thought or on any other criteria.

A couple things here. One, many hold that even if a child survives an abortion, alive and wholly outside the mother’s body, that child can be ‘allowed to die’ because the mother wanted an abortion and the child being alive outside her body doesn’t change that, so… Two, some bioethicsts regard fetuses as “pre-personal” (-or, in a pre-personal phase of development)’ they also allow for a “post-personal” phase, such as at a certain level of dementia. The argument goes that human beings do not have rights, only persons do, and society defines who is and who isn’t a person. Frightening stuff.

 

[Bill_7154]

There is no such thing!

One either agrees with ALL teachings of the church or one is NOT catholic.

The cafeteria is closed…if indeed it was ever open.

Is this in fact, fact? Is there no room for disagreement (I’m not talking about such cut and dry matters of extreme importance as abortion) but is there no possble way that subtle factors in the bible may be interpreted in different ways, and that there are ways that certain teachings of Jesus Christ, through the bible may be open for interpretation compared to say whatever modern written word by those who speak for the Church state?

I’m newly Catholic (was raised Catholic but not invested in being Catholic) and always believed in God and Jesus and prayed and read the bible through my life but have only recently considered myself to have a reborn faith that has lead me back to the Catholic Church with a strong desire to live my life as a Catholic.

Also, along those lines, what order of importance would you put various teachings that speak to being Catholic?

The Bible, Catholic Doctrine, others in order of importance (and if any precede the bible or Catholic Doctrine please enlighten me).

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

I am pro life. How did the opposite of pro life become pro choice; I thought it would be pro death. If we called it what it really is, few would claim being pro death now would they ?

It’s a word game meant to remove the reality from the debate. I"m ‘pro-choice’ on probably hundreds or thousands of different issues. People who are pro abortion simply want to keep abortion out of the slogan and make it sound more appealing and less horrific, trying to deny the truth of the issue in their slogans, discussions, debates, etc.

 

[Corki]

What does that mean, “separate” themselves from the sacraments?

Does that mean not taking communion?
Because I know many pro-choice Catholics who do take communion, etc.

It’s a matter of degree. For some, it is a matter of recieving Communion without being in a state of grace. Outwardly, they are not separated from the Sacraments but they are shut off from the grace of the Eucharist. And it’s not just Communion, it’s Confirmation and Matrimony too.

For some who are not just “personally pro-choice” but who performs acts that forward the abortion agenda, depending on the level of material cooperation, they may be excommunicated.

 

[Bill_7154]

Actually, from a Christian perspective, the fact that we can’t determine when personhood occurs makes it even more critical that we don’t mess with terminating it’s existence. The real question that’s then left to deal with becomes, ‘is human life sacred/worthy of protection to begin with?’

‘Personhood’ is a concept. Life is a concept also I suppose, but also one that is readily identifiable with science. Life is something that takes in nourishment and grows. A human life is created at the moment of conception (when 2 humans procreate) just like a lion life is created at the moment of conception between lions.

The agrument has been perverted away from life to personhood and the legal definition of personhood (which people can debate and set different critera for and never come to clear scientific absolute truth) while life can be readily identifiable.

So it’s like a scam to change the debate to personhood away from life because there is no legitimate scientific debate as to when a human life begins. It begins at conception. It isn’t dead. It isn’t a ‘non life’. It isn’t a cockroach. It is a ‘clump of cells’ but that clump of cells is a human life, different from every other human life that has ever or will ever be created, with a soul given to it by God the Almighty.

Using terms like personhood and clump of cells makes it easier for people with political asperations (however misguided) gain favor in their arguments. It also makes it less difficult for women who are pregant with life to choose to have abortions because their mids have been perverted with the propaganda of clump of cells and personhood and my body my choice, bla bla bla…

Just like in much or most all of politics, people play word games to hide the truth, or outright lie to get their own ends met. It’s shameful but this is the way that politics works. I wish it was not so, but unfortunately, it is.

 

[Bill_7154]

Sacred?

A person is protected because the state can see that it is evidently a person, and the state see’s that it is pragmatically beneficial to protect people.

Yet another reason for me to question the value and morality of ‘the state’.

 

[Farsight001]

Because it cannot be proven in a legal context that abortion is in fact the killing of a person; not according to legal/secular definitions of what a person is, as opposed to religious or speculative definitions.

By definition in pretty much every medical dictionary and biology textbook on the planet, it is alive and human, which makes it, by legal definition, a person.

You can be pro-choice in so far as you understand that the State has no power to criminalise people on the matter of abortion because making abortion illegal would conflict with what state essentially is as a governing body; and yet at the same time you can recognise according to your own beliefs or personal moral standards that abortion in an immoral act.

Actually, this is untrue. The federal government cannot make laws pertaining to the rights of a person over their own body. Technically, this actually makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional. Individual states, in contrast, do have such a right.

It seems evident to me that attacking abortion in a legal sense would also be attacking the very idea of a Secular State that recognises and respects the pluralistic nature of society and enforces laws according to what is evidently beneficial to the pluralistic whole, as opposed to what is beneficial to a minority group and their beliefs.

No abortion would be beneficial to the whole.

Its as if after hundreds of years Christians are only just waking up to the fact that secular law does not function according to the beliefs and moral definitions of Christianity.

Why are you surprised? This is what I don’t understand.

Who in the world ever said that this position was based off of our religious beliefs? The Constitution itself says quite clearly that the right to life is for all men and their progeny. That’s future offspring, in case you didn’t know. So it’s right there in the constitution that those NOT YET BORN already have the right to life.

 

[Pilosopo]

One with a grotesquely deformed conscience, which is itself a sin. No Catholic can possibly claim that the Church does not teach that abortion is a grave sin. So to allow your your conscience to be formed in opposition to such clear teaching is itself, as I said, a sin for which the person is responsible.

I guess by “grotesquely deformed conscience” and how it is in “itself is a sin” you refer to how people can be irresponsible with regard to forming a correct conscience. I would have to obey my erroneous conscience, unfortunately, because in the end, that is the only thing that I can own up to. So for example, if my conscience told me that I have to kill my neighbor within the hour, I, unfortunately would be doing an immoral thing by not killing my neighbor as so instructed. But again, that has to be understood within that very limited context where God, even though perverted for one reason or another, speaks to me and vice versa. Fortunately, it seems to be the case that in most instances, a conscience can also grasp how the individual can be wrong and how one has to listen and take some instruction from the greater community. So I guess you are right in saying that one may resist what authorities, the Church, say, and one may rationalize, or in a sense form a conscience “in opposition to such a clear teaching.” Now note that you say it’s clear, crystal clear to you. To others, it may not be so clear. Hence, perhaps, the need to talk, explain, persuade, etc… until we all are on the same black and white page.

 

[JRKH]

Because it cannot be proven in a legal context that abortion is in fact the killing of a person; not according to legal/secular definitions of what a person is, as opposed to religious or speculative definitions.

Not very surprising given a secular democracy and the split between church and state. I am not sure why you find it surprising.

You can be pro-choice in so far as you understand that the State has no power to criminalize people on the matter of abortion because making abortion illegal would conflict with what state essentially is as a governing body; and yet at the same time you can recognize according to your own beliefs or personal moral standards that abortion in an immoral act.

It seems evident to me that attacking abortion in a legal sense would also be attacking the very idea of a Secular State that recognises and respects the pluralistic nature of society and enforces laws according to what is evidently beneficial to the pluralistic whole, as opposed to what is beneficial to a minority group and their beliefs.

Its as if after hundreds of years Christians are only just waking up to the fact that secular law does not function according to the beliefs and moral definitions of Christianity.

Why are you surprised? This is what I don’t understand.

Well I see from the responses that I don’t even need to comment…except to say that _ I never said I was surprised…I said I did not understand…And frankly - You have not cleared up the matter for me. Those who have already responded have pretty much covered the various aspects, mainly the scientific view that the human is a human from conception…
That along with the fact that, should the mother so NOT to abort, science is more than willing to go to great lengths to save the pre-born - even performing in-eutero surgery. then there is the already mentioned fact that a person who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders…An additional problem is when the mother wishes to abort but the father does not…And the father is ignored.
Not a very tidy legal standard that…

The fact is that regardless of what the Supreme court ruled in 1973, what has evolved is a situation where the mother of the child, or someone with great influence over her, is the one who gets to decide if the pre-born is a person or not. Not the courts through any legal definition that is applied equally.

Peace
James

 

[snarflemike]

I guess by “grotesquely deformed conscience” and how it is in “itself is a sin” you refer to how people can be irresponsible with regard to forming a correct conscience. I would have to obey my erroneous conscience, unfortunately, because in the end, that is the only thing that I can own up to. So for example, if my conscience told me that I have to kill my neighbor within the hour, I, unfortunately would be doing an immoral thing by not killing my neighbor as so instructed. But again, that has to be understood within that very limited context where God, even though perverted for one reason or another, speaks to me and vice versa. Fortunately, it seems to be the case that in most instances, a conscience can also grasp how the individual can be wrong and how one has to listen and take some instruction from the greater community. So I guess you are right in saying that one may resist what authorities, the Church, say, and one may rationalize, or in a sense form a conscience “in opposition to such a clear teaching.” Now note that you say it’s clear, crystal clear to you. To others, it may not be so clear. Hence, perhaps, the need to talk, explain, persuade, etc… until we all are on the same black and white page.

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:

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,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 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.

Shall we take a poll to see whether this is clear?

 

[austenbosten]

I’m Pro-Choice,

A) Have sex and risk pregnancy

B) Not have sex and not risk pregnancy

 

[fhansen]

‘Personhood’ is a concept. Life is a concept also I suppose, but also one that is readily identifiable with science. Life is something that takes in nourishment and grows. A human life is created at the moment of conception (when 2 humans procreate) just like a lion life is created at the moment of conception between lions.

The agrument has been perverted away from life to personhood and the legal definition of personhood (which people can debate and set different critera for and never come to clear scientific absolute truth) while life can be readily identifiable.

So it’s like a scam to change the debate to personhood away from life because there is no legitimate scientific debate as to when a human life begins. It begins at conception. It isn’t dead. It isn’t a ‘non life’. It isn’t a cockroach. It is a ‘clump of cells’ but that clump of cells is a human life, different from every other human life that has ever or will ever be created, with a soul given to it by God the Almighty.

Using terms like personhood and clump of cells makes it easier for people with political asperations (however misguided) gain favor in their arguments. It also makes it less difficult for women who are pregant with life to choose to have abortions because their mids have been perverted with the propaganda of clump of cells and personhood and my body my choice, bla bla bla…

Just like in much or most all of politics, people play word games to hide the truth, or outright lie to get their own ends met. It’s shameful but this is the way that politics works. I wish it was not so, but unfortunately, it is.

I disagree completely. IMO personhood, as in the person of Jesus or the persons of ourselves, gives the life more specific humanity-and makes it less likely to be cavalierly done away with. Even animals have life at conception, but not a life worthy of the protection we must afford human beings- persons.

 

[adrift]

But…does a person merely agreeing with the pro-choice stance put them out of the state of grace?

And Catholics who have gotten abortions…which I guess, would be the ultimate cooperating and *very *forwarding the abortion agenda…you know women who have been excommunicated for it?

Does a person who merely agrees with someone committing adultery, stealing, or any other sin “put them out of the state of grace?” I don’t know if it would rise to the level of a mortal sin as that requires certain things to be mortal. It certainly would be venial.

Any Catholic who has procured an abortion or helped to procure one is Latae sententiae excommunicated.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There is no such thing!

One either agrees with ALL teachings of the church or one is NOT catholic.

Those in the thread about rejecting the faith in part might disagree.

 

[Pilosopo]

Shall we take a poll to see whether this is clear?

Hey, thanks. There is no need to run a poll. What is “formal cooperation”? And a “grave offense” is mortal sin? I’ll have to do some research into “latae sententiae”… “The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy” refers to compassion… like that. This is from Canon Law, right? The Church does mean business when it goes to abortion. It still helps to know why the Church is against abortion. It helps to understand Church authority as well.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Pro Choice Catholic”…Cookies officially tossed.