I thought today was/is today.Irrelevant to the topic. Sure we believers all agree God desires for us and our born children to choose eternal life with HIm. But this verse speaks not a thing to me about the unborn.
Of course abortion has always existed and will continue to do so even if it is ever made illegal again in all circumstances. Just another reason why I choose safe, legal but rare rather than women resorting to coat hangers and unsafe back alley abortions once again.I thought today was/is today.
" … Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."
Deuteronomy 30:19
Or … choose abortion.
Then?
Now?
Abortion was in use thousands of years ago.
You know that, eh?
Like your unusual fondness for that verse from Exodus -
but this verse is far more relevant … choosing life for the unborn.
The commandment of the Lord regrding life in the womb is NO abortion. That is the singular command taught by the Catholic Church regarding newly conceived life and it is a command always supported (without exception) by faithful Catholics.Of course abortion has always existed and will continue to do so even if it is ever made illegal again in all circumstances. Just another reason why I choose safe, legal but rare rather than women resorting to coat hangers and unsafe back alley abortions once again.
But this verse speaks of loving God and not being led to worship other gods and thus choosing to live a long life amidst His blessings.
16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.
17 If, however, you turn away your hearts and will not listen, but are led astray and adore and serve other gods,
18 I tell you now that you will certainly perish; you will not have a long life on the land which you are crossing the Jordan to enter and occupy.
19 I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live,
20 by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him. For that will mean life for you, a long life for you to live on the land which the LORD swore he would give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
At least the verse of my fondness as you call it actually speaks about a pregnant woman.
This of course is a vicious untruth and unfair statement against the Catholic priest Father Drinan, who the Catholic Father William McLaughlin has called “one of the most conscientious, courageous and honest" persons ever to serve in Congress.There is no question that Fr. D was pro-abortion… none what-so-ever. So he fits the definition of a heretic like a custom pair of shoes.
Apparently though from this thread there are existing Catholics who are pro choice. Their degree of obedience is not for me to delve into. And perhaps even their personal convictions and what they believe about the law of the land on this issue are 2 different things. So I will now only say choice vs anti choice is an issue that often goes circular and is something that may be debated until heaven and earth pass is all is fulfilled.The commandment of the Lord regrding life in the womb is NO abortion. That is the singular command taught by the Catholic Church regarding newly conceived life and it is a command always supported (without exception) by faithful Catholics.
As I’ve stated there are no relevant (i.e., approved) pro-choice Catholics. Such a category does not and can NOT exist within the Church or among faithful, obedient Catholics.
Indeed.A cause for much prayer.
Given the radical character of the Roe v. Wade decision, the fact that he was the mentor of the Kennedys, all of whom have been militant supporters of the abortion right, my conclusion is that this is mere sophistry.According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
This of course is a vicious untruth and unfair statement against the Catholic priest Father Drinan, who the Catholic Father William McLaughlin has called “one of the most conscientious, courageous and honest" persons ever to serve in Congress.
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- …
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
and
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Now let us examine what was said:
Father Drinan consistently expressed his belief that abortion was morally wrong and that he was morally opposed to abortion. For example,
on Jan. 29 1974, he wrote:
“I appreciate your letter and thank you for your deep concern
for the sanctity and inviolability of all human life, including fetal life.
You can be assured that I share the moral sentiments
which you have spelled out in your letter.”
Feb. 28, 1974:
“although the possibility or feasibility of amending the U.S. Constitution
to provide against abortion remains in doubt at this time,
I know that all of those individuals working for the protection of fetal life
deepen within the mind of Americans
that reverence which all of us should have for human life.”
Sept 11, 1975:
“Contrary to what your letter states, I have not assumed a pro-abortion position.
It is unfair and unjust for you to make that statement.”
:clapping:Jumping back in with a couple more out of sequence replies - sorry -
I do think that for those like Rence who are working in health care, choosing a job where you wouldn’t be dealing with abortion related procedures is a good idea. If I were in healthcare that’s probably what I would do, and it could be a solution to the moral dilemma for someone on either side of the issue. Of course, there are those who have to be closer to the situation . . . I don’t envy them.
TMI alert - though I’m 100% pro-life, I can also from personal experience somewhat understand the point of view of a woman feeling scared and vulnerable about the changes in her body and destiny that would come about from a crisis pregnancy.
Before my hysterectomy when I was hemorrhaging so much and - well, it was gross and painful and I was becoming anemic, 'nuff said. And when the problem first started it was “not bad enough” to justify the surgery, so I basically was just told “deal with it.” And that did make me feel alone and helpless and afraid. And angry because I didn’t have a choice.
It’s just part of human physical vulnerability. If you expand it out to other illnesses, even men might have experiences of feeling out of control. So I do think that a woman who chooses abortion might be in such a state of fear she might not always be capable of making the right choice. That’s why crisis pregnancy support is so important and necessary. To calm her fears so she can choose life and even be glad she’s choosing it before the baby arrives.
Of course, in many cases the woman could have avoided pregnancy by abstinence, but people make mistakes. Or there are the other issues - health, rape and incest trauma, coercion by boyfriend/husband/parents to abort even if the woman would want to keep the baby. But once the baby is conceived, we have to love and help them both as best we can.
. If you vote for candidates who support abortion you are complicit in the slaughter of the innocents regardless of what you stated view on abortion is. The only way we can ever justify voting for somebody who supports abortion is if their opponent is even more pro-abortion than they are in. As Archbishop Chaput put it in such a case we are not choose between the lesser of two evils, we are choosing lessen evilSir, yes I do go to my Priest and he is a very good man. Like I said earlier, it has to be very, very rare. The mother and baby are in danger.
Paul
The church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and has been unchanging for the 2000 years of its existence. Grabbing random Scripture verses, putting one’s personal spin on them, and claiming that trumps 2000 years of teaching and tradition is speciousAs someone not identified to the Catholic faith nor who speaks for the Catholic Church on the forum I also look at Exodus 21: 22-23 which tells me the loss of a fetus is not equal to the death of a woman. The punishment for loss of a fetus was less than if the mother suffered loss of her life these verses tell me. God bless you too. Peace.
The problem is with Catholics who claim to be pro-life but vote to empower pro-abortion politicians.Pro-Choice Catholic is a oxymoron!
Apparently Fr. Drinan’s public record means nothing to you. Well you can accuse me of lying about and besmirching Fr. Drinan’s reputation if you like but his public record speaks for itself. I’ve enclosed a few facts you might find educational:According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
This of course is a vicious untruth and unfair statement against the Catholic priest Father Drinan, who the Catholic Father William McLaughlin has called “one of the most conscientious, courageous and honest" persons ever to serve in Congress.
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- …
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
and
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Now let us examine what was said:
Father Drinan consistently expressed his belief that abortion was morally wrong and that he was morally opposed to abortion. For example,
on Jan. 29 1974, he wrote:
“I appreciate your letter and thank you for your deep concern
for the sanctity and inviolability of all human life, including fetal life.
You can be assured that I share the moral sentiments
which you have spelled out in your letter.”
Feb. 28, 1974:
“although the possibility or feasibility of amending the U.S. Constitution
to provide against abortion remains in doubt at this time,
I know that all of those individuals working for the protection of fetal life
deepen within the mind of Americans
that reverence which all of us should have for human life.”
Sept 11, 1975:
“Contrary to what your letter states, I have not assumed a pro-abortion position.
It is unfair and unjust for you to make that statement.”
In an earlier post I said I thought their were two priests serving in Congress. I was wrong it was only Drinan. So Pope John Paul II’s mandate was pretty pointed eh?Robert Drinan, the only priest ever elected as a voting member of Congress, died peacefully Sunday at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington; he was 86.
Nice note to start ones political career on!The Jesuit ran for elected office in 1970, over the objections of his superiors
A priest…a Catholic priest speaking out in favor of partial birth abortion is by itself scandelous and heretical.In 1996 Fr. Drinan made waves by speaking in support of President Bill Clinton’s veto of the partial birth abortion ban.
Defending Clinton’s Veto
Even out of office Drinan continues to speak on behalf of abortion. In 1996, while the veto of a ban on partial birth abortion hung in the balance, Fr. Drinan came to the defense of President Clinton in the pages of the New York Times and National Catholic Reporter because (in part) the ban “would allow federal power to intrude into the practice of medicine.” Cardinal O’Conor thundered back at Drinan, “. . . you’re wrong, dead wrong. You could have raised your formidable voice for life; you have raised it for death.” After months of arm-twisting, Drinan retracted his statement from the New York Times, saying he had relied on what turned out to be false information regarding partial birth abortion.
Over a year and half ago, ALL’s Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church identified the top 12 pro-abortion Catholics in the United States Senate. The “Deadly Dozen” campaign led to the exposition of over 500 politicians on the state and federal level who claim Catholicism yet vote for and/or support a “woman’s right to choose.”
The choice made by Fr. Robert Drinan has unfortunately given cover to many of the above-mentioned politicians. After all, if a Catholic priest can support “choice” why can’t anyone else? When politicians lamely use the “I’m personally opposed to abortion BUT…” argument, they can thank Fr. Drinan for laying the groundwork for their faulty reasoning. One pro-abortion Catholic senator regularly says that he opposes abortion as an “article of faith,” but because we live in a pluralistic society, he must represent all of his constituents. He is duty bound to support the “settled law” of legalized abortion.
What more evidence do you need? Fr. Drinan views and actions fit the definition of ‘heresy’ to a ‘T’.From 1971-1981, Fr. Drinan, often wearing his Roman collar, stood up in the House of Representatives and defended the legalized destruction of preborn children. According to writer and historian James Hitchcock, soon after the infamous decision of Roe v. wade, Drinan wrote a public defense of the decision, recognizing that it had flaws but finding it on the whole a beneficial judgment. He then proceeded, over the next several years, to compile an almost perfect pro-abortion voting record in Congress, often speaking passionately about a woman’s “constitutional right” to abort, even while stating that this right went completely contrary to his own conscience.
In reality, a “pro-choice Catholic” is a “dissenting Catholic.”Apparently though from this thread there are existing Catholics who are pro choice. Their degree of obedience is not for me to delve into. And perhaps even their personal convictions and what they believe about the law of the land on this issue are 2 different things. So I will now only say choice vs anti choice is an issue that often goes circular and is something that may be debated until heaven and earth pass is all is fulfilled.
To the best of my knowledge, levelling a charge of heresy is not given to the laity. Any declaration of “heresy” and/or “heretic” remains with the Holy Father. One can state that this or that action appears to be heretical. We can go no further than that.Apparently Fr. Drinan’s public record means nothing to you. Well you can accuse me of lying about and besmirching Fr. Drinan’s reputation if you like but his public record speaks for itself. I’ve enclosed a few facts you might find educational:
In January 2007 the Catholic News Agency (CNA) published an article titled, “Priest-politician who supported abortion dies at 86”. I lifted the following facts from the article:
In an earlier post I said I thought their were two priests serving in Congress. I was wrong it was only Drinan. So Pope John Paul II’s mandate was pretty pointed eh?
Nice note to start ones political career on!
A priest…a Catholic priest speaking out in favor of partial birth abortion is by itself scandelous and heretical.
CatholicCulture.org published and article written by Joe Starrs. Joe is the director of American Life League’s Crusade for the Defense of Our Catholic Church. In his article he said the following:
What more evidence do you need? Fr. Drinan views and actions fit the definition of ‘heresy’ to a ‘T’.
I accept you apology.
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
Lay people are not banned from an opionion of who is or who is not a heretic. While the Church did not label Drinan a heretic, nor has the Church labeled Hans Kung or other clerics who publicly dissent from Catholic dogma heretics for reasons I do not know or probably not understand, they fit the definition of a heretic to a ‘T’.To the best of my knowledge, levelling a charge of heresy is not given to the laity. Any declaration of “heresy” and/or “heretic” remains with the Holy Father. One can state that this or that action appears to be heretical. We can go no further than that.
Bolded above: that’s my point.Lay people are not banned from an opionion of who is or who is not a heretic. While the Church did not label Drinan a heretic, nor has the Church labeled Hans Kung or other clerics who publicly dissent from Catholic dogma heretics for reasons I do not know or probably not understand, they fit the definition of a heretic to a ‘T’.
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
Ah but you miss my point. While I don’t understand why the Church has not acted more forcefully doesn’t in any way diminish the Fr. Drinan’s views or the fact they conflict with Catholic doctrine. Since he persistantly has supported abortion he meets the definition of a heretic and in my opinion he is one.Bolded above: that’s my point.