Pro-choice Catholics

[etspiri2sanctus]

I must do no such thing, when choice may happen inside the abortion facility and a pregnant woman changes her mind and leaves the building. I must do no such thing, when a desperate woman, pregnant without a partner, without family, without money chooses to have her baby and do the best she can. I must do absolutely no such thing when a woman who is pregnant without wanting to be CHOOSES to have her baby and offer it for adoption.

No. The term “pro-choice” has been corrupted to equal evil-doing when there are many facets to choice, not just one, NOT just abortion. And, apparently, duty calls when pro-lifers hear the term: it can mean only one thing. No thought necessary. Just rise up and flare.

gen

The words pro-choice are used to dull the mind of what happens when one is not Pro Life.
No such thing as pro choice. One either protects life in all its glory, or one does " less than".

Christ does not expect us to be a nation of individuals of “less thans.”

 

[century153]

Abortion, has been compared to slavery many times, but I am going to bring it up once again. If we now lived in a nation in which some states permitted slavery, would we be for, or against slavery if we said “I personally am against slavery. I would never own a slave, but since the law permits slavery, others have the choice to do as they will?” For, or against slavery? I would say if one is not AGAINST slavery of all kinds, one is FOR it.

Child abuse. "I would never beat my child, but if others want to do so, that is their business’.
I would say one is FOR child abuse.

If we as a Christian people do not give sanctuary to every unborn child by raising our voices against abortion, by helping the mothers who are in serious straits and who think abortion is the only way out, we are pro abortion. No ifs, ands and buts about it.

'This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. Deuteronomy 30:19

Thank you for that post and the beautiful quote from scripture. Also, the quote from gen’s original posting – taking a second look was illuminating.

Quote from genevievelives:

"There is no way a practicing conservative Catholic will ever agree with a pro-choice individual who is or has ever been affiliated with the Catholic Church. It’s a no-brainer. The true Catholic has a duty and a desire to believe all doctrine, all dogma, all ideology presented by the Magisterium. The once-and-perhaps-never-again Catholic, even though yoked by the Church’s teaching that he or she is once-and-forever a Catholic no matter what foul and evil deeds that person may have been involved in, will usually decline any invitation to return to the swaddling safety of the Church, and will go it alone. This person may be of the pro-choice persuasion.

I am pro-choice. The average CAF member may find others in the archives who have made strong arguments for the pro-choice side. It makes no difference what has been said or what will be said. It is all without purpose. What happens is you get to pontificate, and then the pro-choice folks head out on the battlefield with their sling shots, only to be brought down by the sheer numbers of muskets from the other side, the muskets that are allowed by the moderators because they are defending the fort. I’m not even talking about vitriolic posting or name calling. I’m just referring to the fact that the “Evil Other Side” is tolerated only so long, and then a shut-down judgment is made."

She mentions practicing “conservative” catholic – why she used the adjective is confusing because later she seems to imply that those who are pro-choice are not practicing catholics but that they are “yoked” as though being “chained” to the catholic church by reason of their baptism and upbringing and that the implication is that they are wayward catholics who would “never” return to the church’s teaching. So, then, I guess it is absolutely true that one cannot be pro-choice and practice the Catholic faith. But, why do they call themselves Catholics? Certainly not just because they are baptized in the Catholic Church? I have plenty in my family who were cradle catholics and have joined up with other christian churches – they do not call themselves Catholics – they call themselves Christians. If someone does not want to adhere to the doctrine of the RC Church – why is it that they insist on saying they are Catholic?

 

[catharina]

Thank you for that post and the beautiful quote from scripture. Also, the quote from gen’s original posting – taking a second look was illuminating.

Quote from genevievelives:

"There is no way a practicing conservative Catholic will ever agree with a pro-choice individual who is or has ever been affiliated with the Catholic Church. It’s a no-brainer. The true Catholic has a duty and a desire to believe all doctrine, all dogma, all ideology presented by the Magisterium. The once-and-perhaps-never-again Catholic, even though yoked by the Church’s teaching that he or she is once-and-forever a Catholic no matter what foul and evil deeds that person may have been involved in, will usually decline any invitation to return to the swaddling safety of the Church, and will go it alone. This person may be of the pro-choice persuasion.

I am pro-choice. The average CAF member may find others in the archives who have made strong arguments for the pro-choice side. It makes no difference what has been said or what will be said. It is all without purpose. What happens is you get to pontificate, and then the pro-choice folks head out on the battlefield with their sling shots, only to be brought down by the sheer numbers of muskets from the other side, the muskets that are allowed by the moderators because they are defending the fort. I’m not even talking about vitriolic posting or name calling. I’m just referring to the fact that the “Evil Other Side” is tolerated only so long, and then a shut-down judgment is made."

She mentions practicing “conservative” catholic – why she used the adjective is confusing because later she seems to imply that those who are pro-choice are not practicing catholics but that they are “yoked” as though being “chained” to the catholic church by reason of their baptism and upbringing and that the implication is that they are wayward catholics who would “never” return to the church’s teaching. So, then, I guess it is absolutely true that one cannot be pro-choice and practice the Catholic faith. But, why do they call themselves Catholics? Certainly not just because they are baptized in the Catholic Church? I have plenty in my family who were cradle catholics and have joined up with other christian churches – they do not call themselves Catholics – they call themselves Christians. If someone does not want to adhere to the doctrine of the RC Church – why is it that they insist on saying they are Catholic?

Perhaps they enjoy arguing?
Perhaps they enjoy the attention?
Perhaps they have a need to repudiate Truth in public?

In any event, theology will not bear the contradiction in terms.

Catholic is one thing.
Pro-choice is another thing entirely.

 

[catharina]

A site that reflects on abortion …

**CLINIC QUOTES **

clinicquotes.com/site/page.php?id=1

 

[sidbrown]

If someone does not want to adhere to the doctrine of the RC Church – why is it that they insist on saying they are Catholic?

The pro-choice Catholic priest, Father Robert Drinan, did say that he adhered to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on abortion and that he was personally very much opposed to it. His argument was that although he was personally opposed to abortion, he did not think that abortion should be made illegal. He has a record as a US Congressman as being the most pro-choice congressman in history.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

I think there would be less pro abortion Catholics if the church didn’t deem birth control a sin.

 

[Tigg]

I think there would be less pro abortion Catholics if the church didn’t deem birth control a sin.

I just noticed this thread and have not read all the posts so I don’t know if this has been discussed or not. This group (see link) has produced some videos stating that nothing will really change within the pro-life movement until church teaching on contraception is once again taught by the clergy. There is a mentality among Catholics that has bought into the lie that sex is only for pleasure and they dismiss the reality of the spiritual. I agree completely with their assessment.

realcatholictv.com/forwards/20110125.php

 

[catharina]

I think there would be less pro abortion Catholics if the church didn’t deem birth control a sin.

Within salvation history, from the birth of Judaism (Abraham’s call)
until today, God has rvealed that birth control is sinful.

One might even say the faithfulness of the Catholic Church in regard
to the teaching that contraception is wrong is another sign of the Truth of the
Catholic Church. (Until 1930s, that same teaching was held by ALL of Christianity.)

The Catholic Church does not and will not abandon a truth revealed by GOD.

 

[century153]

The pro-choice Catholic priest, Father Robert Drinan, did say that he adhered to the doctrine of the Catholic Church on abortion and that he was personally very much opposed to it. His argument was that although he was personally opposed to abortion, he did not think that abortion should be made illegal. He has a record as a US Congressman as being the most pro-choice congressman in history.

As a Congressman he is a lawmaker – is it possible he knew a whole lot more about the law than we do. I for example have never read the entire law. I have said before that maybe we need to have “choice” so that no one can ever force it the other way and this would cover euthanasia as well. I believe the priest was speaking as a Congressman when he was pro-choice and not as a priest or even just a citizen. Maybe they need to revise the law or amend it – for example, forbid certain procedures. I am just wondering about it – I do not know anything about Fr. Drinan except what you are telling me.

 

[Tigg]

To elaborate on my previous post:

**Contraception actually increases the abortion rate. **This has been known for decades. In 1970, Malcolm Potts, a former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said, “Abortion and contraception are inextricably intertwined in their use. As the idea of family planning spreads through a community there appears to be a rise in the incidence of induced abortion at the point where the community begins to initiate the use of contraceptives.”

Even the Supreme Court in the 1992 Casey decision recognized that surgical abortion is a necessary backup for contraception because Americans “for two decades organized intimate relationships … on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”

washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/contraception-cant-halt-abortions-rise/

 

[Iowa_Mike]

No. First of all, Father Drinan was a Congressman, not a US Senator. Secondly, the Vatican in 1980 asked all priests to withdraw from electoral politics.I don;t see where Father Drinan was asked by the Vatican to renounce his pro-choice views.
The record shows that of all UIS Congressman in the history of the USA, Father Drinan was the most pro-choice Congressman ever, according to his voting record and his speeches. I don;t see where he ever was required to renounce his pro-choice views?

Yes. All priests were asked to leave electoral politics at that time. He complied with the directive, but I don’t see where he was asked to renounce what he had advocated in the area of pro-choice legislation?

I think you are missing the point. I think there were only two priests in public office at the time Pope John Paul II ordered priests not to run for political office. That isn’t the issue here. The issue is why did Pope John Paul do so? It is clear that he did so because of Drinan’s radical and heretical opinions about abortion. Drinan claimed that while he was personally opposed to abortion (which he called infant suicide) he didn’t think it should be made illegal. That should sound familiar as it was Drinan’s word parsing that laid the foundation for the famous Kennedy claim that while they are personally opposed to abortion they couldn’t impose their personal views upon the electorate. Now we have John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and a host of other people who claim to be Catholics and publically support abortion for the same reason as Drinan and the Kennedys.

There is absolutely no question that Fr. Drinan’s views on abortion were and are heretical. So he was a heretic…period. Why didn’t the Church defrock him. I’ve no idea why or what might have gone on behind the scene. I can give you a list of priests, bishops and archbishops who I think should be canonically punished…e.g. those priests et al that fail to uphold the teachings of the church or who openly oppose Church doctrine.

Doesn’t change what Fr. Drinan was…and is…a heretic.

I hope and pray he repented before his Particular Judgement.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Rohanfan]

I debated whether to start this thread under Moral Issues but decided to put it under Social Justice because its about, in my opinion, justice for the unborn.

Are there any pro-choice Cathlics out there? I will state right fom the beginning lest anyone out there might believe anythng else given the title of the thread –

          **"I AM PRO-LIFE"**

The reason for this thread is to have a calm and civil discussion about abortion. If there are any pro-choice Cathlics out there, please state your reasons for this belief and if possible, please back it up with scripture and Catholic teaching. Also, I would like to know if whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, do you attend chuch regularly and participate in your faith fully?

Thank you – and I pray this will be an inspiring and uplifting experience for all who participate.

To the Moderators: Please montior this discussion and if it becomes vile I ask that you shut it down.

How are you doing Century?

OK, hmmmm, my answer is hard to give. I guess I would say that I am Pro-Life. I know people possibly will say that there is a big butt.

I do attend church regular along with a Bible Study every week. I help give the CRHP weekends.

OK, here is the biggie!! I voted for Obama!!!

I felt he was the better candidate than McCain.

I am glad I got that off my chest. Now for 2012, I do not know.

I think that Abortion should not be done except for in a very extreme measure. That is my only issue. Something has to be happening, that is extremely sensitive and will not hurt both the Baby and the Mother.

I know I will be vilified later and I am sorry but that is How I feel.

Paul

 

[catharina]

How are you doing Century?

OK, hmmmm, my answer is hard to give. I guess I would say that I am Pro-Life. I know people possibly will say that there is a big butt.

I do attend church regular along with a Bible Study every week. I help give the CRHP weekends.

OK, here is the biggie!! I voted for Obama!!!

I felt he was the better candidate than McCain.

I am glad I got that off my chest. Now for 2012, I do not know.

I think that Abortion should not be done except for in a very extreme measure. That is my only issue. Something has to be happening, that is extremely sensitive and will not hurt both the Baby and the Mother.

I know I will be vilified later and I am sorry but that is How I feel.

Paul

Here’s what obama thinks re abortion - in a nutshell …

obama was fully supportive of late-term abortion in Illinois.

Late-term abortions can and often do result in the delivery of a live infant.
If obama is that comfortable with murdering a newborn rather than giving
medical attention to newborns - (obama’s stand), this nation is in grave danger.

So the president is into infanticide? So NO big deal???

It’s a blessing in disguise that the situation re Gosnell is now public.
Perhaps more people will understand the nature of obama’s stand.

Did you know that before you voted?  No answer expected.  Question is rhetorical.

 

[Tigg]

OK, here is the biggie!! I voted for Obama!!!

I felt he was the better candidate than McCain.

I am glad I got that off my chest. Now for 2012, I do not know.

Sorry, but no one on CAF can exonerate you. When I want to get something off my chest, I most normally go to confession. I voted in the last election and chose NEITHER Obama or McCain.

Speaking just for myself, of course, I’ve found that I must direct my political ideology into the larger parameter of the truth of my faith.

 

[Rohanfan]

Here’s what obama thinks re abortion - in a nutshell …

obama was fully supportive of late-term abortion in Illinois.

Late-term abortions can and often do result in the delivery of a live infant.
If obama is that comfortable with murdering a newborn rather than giving
medical attention to newborns - (obama’s stand), this nation is in grave danger.

So the president is into infanticide? So NO big deal???

It’s a blessing in disguise that the situation re Gosnell is now public.
Perhaps more people will understand the nature of obama’s stand.

Did you know that before you voted?  No answer expected.  Question is rhetorical.

OK, maybe I am not seeing something right here?

Now, I am not saying that I believe in Abortion, so lets get that out of the way.

He voted against on the Bills that were brought up in the Illinois Congress.

The reason was that they were going to circumvent the Roe V Wade law. And as a Constitutional Law person he knew what they were doing. Sooner or Later the Bill would have been ruled Unconstitutional. He actually never said that he wants women to be able to have a Partial-Birth Abortion, never. This is why I do not like Politics, because people try to do a run around the actual issue at hand.

About Abortion in General, I think the Supreme Court Justices in 1973 should have the blame for all of this. They knew if it went through that it would be decades before anything would be changed at all. Meaning they would be dead by the time it came up again.

I will leave this thread for now.

Paul

 

[Iowa_Mike]

How are you doing Century?

OK, hmmmm, my answer is hard to give. I guess I would say that I am Pro-Life. I know people possibly will say that there is a big butt.

I do attend church regular along with a Bible Study every week. I help give the CRHP weekends.

OK, here is the biggie!! I voted for Obama!!!

I felt he was the better candidate than McCain.

I am glad I got that off my chest. Now for 2012, I do not know.

I think that Abortion should not be done except for in a very extreme measure. That is my only issue. Something has to be happening, that is extremely sensitive and will not hurt both the Baby and the Mother.

I know I will be vilified later and I am sorry but that is How I feel.

Paul

I suggest you look at the Catholic Answers Voting Guide. In it you would learn that you cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Obama if there is a better life option candidate. You may not have liked McCain (I didn’t either) but he was clearly the lesser of two evils regarding abortion.

You beliefs regarding abortion are not in concert with the Church. See CCC 2270, it states:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Jer1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

lPs 139:15 “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.”

Catholic teaching does not allow for circumstantial based abortions except where the baby is found to be not viable e.g. and ectopic pregnancy. Then the Church allows surgery to save the mothers life. However, if the child is viable no such exception is given.

I didn’t understand your closing comment about something needs to be happening that is extremely sensitive and will not hurt both baby and mother. Obviously any abortion hurts the baby.

I’ve given my share of CHRP week-ends but care needs to be taken not to teach or allow error to be taught directly, by witness etc.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[beafedor]

How are you doing Century?

OK, hmmmm, my answer is hard to give. I guess I would say that I am Pro-Life. I know people possibly will say that there is a big butt.

I do attend church regular along with a Bible Study every week. I help give the CRHP weekends.

OK, here is the biggie!! I voted for Obama!!!

I felt he was the better candidate than McCain.

I am glad I got that off my chest. Now for 2012, I do not know.

I think that Abortion should not be done except for in a very extreme measure. That is my only issue. Something has to be happening, that is extremely sensitive and will not hurt both the Baby and the Mother.

I know I will be vilified later and I am sorry but that is How I feel.

Paul

Paul, my brother thank you for your honesty.
What is a “very extreme measure”? Do you mean the case where the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy? Just want to make sure that I understand.

In such cases, the Church doesn’t teach that everything shouldn’t be attempted to save a mother’s life. The direct killing of another human being, born or unborn is always immoral and unacceptable. However, in the case, for example where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube rather than in the uterus, it is morally acceptable to remove the tube to save the mother’s life. As an unintended consequence, the removal of the tube causes the death of the baby. It’s called the law of double effect.
Even though there has been cases where an ectopic pregnancy was carried to term: lifenews.com/2008/06/02/int-770/

I assume that you know quite well where Mr Obama stands on abortion. Here is a compilation of his pro-abortion record lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

 

[catharina]

Paul, my brother thank you for your honesty.
What is a “very extreme measure”? Do you mean the case where the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy? Just want to make sure that I understand.

In such cases, the Church doesn’t teach that everything shouldn’t be attempted to save a mother’s life. **The direct killing of another human being, born or unborn is always immoral and unacceptable. **However, in the case, for example where the baby is growing in the fallopian tube rather than in the uterus, it is morally acceptable to remove the tube to save the mother’s life. As an unintended consequence, the removal of the tube causes the death of the baby. It’s called the law of double effect.
Even though there has been cases where an ectopic pregnancy was carried to term: lifenews.com/2008/06/02/int-770/

I assume that you know quite well where Mr Obama stands on abortion. Here is a compilation of his pro-abortion record lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

Bolded above: the heart of the matter.

 

[beafedor]

I have said before that maybe we need to have “choice” so that no one can ever force it the other way and this would cover euthanasia as well. .

Hello friend, I don’t understand this sentence. Could you clarify please?

 

[estesbob]

How are you doing Century?

OK, hmmmm, my answer is hard to give. I guess I would say that I am Pro-Life. I know people possibly will say that there is a big butt.

I do attend church regular along with a Bible Study every week. I help give the CRHP weekends.

OK, here is the biggie!! I voted for Obama!!!

I felt he was the better candidate than McCain.

I am glad I got that off my chest. Now for 2012, I do not know.

I think that Abortion should not be done except for in a very extreme measure. That is my only issue. Something has to be happening, that is extremely sensitive and will not hurt both the Baby and the Mother.

I know I will be vilified later and I am sorry but that is How I feel.

Paul

CAF is not a place where one should go to confess their sins. If you voted for Obama need to go to confession and ask your Priest for absolution. Between now and 2012 I suggest you spend some time learning not only what the church teaches about abortion but why.