Pro-choice Catholics

[guanophore]

What’s sad is that I felt forced to vote for a man who I believe would have utterly destroyed our economy, thus our country, because the apparent message on CAF is: Vote REPUBLICAN or you are going to burn in hell for all eternity.

CAF is forbidden to give these kind of messages due to their tax and funding status. This is the same reason we cannot mention candidates by name. We can talk about issues and values but but we can’t be partisan or overtly political.

It is incumbent upon Catholics to prioritize life during elections. I think the financial consequences, as well as other consequences we suffer for that are the fallout and price we pay for living in a culture of death. It is our cross to bear, because we have failed to provide sufficient light and salt to our culture.

 

[catharina]

Of course not. The Church cannot ban an opinion!

What we are not to do is make statements and judgements with regard to persons about which we may have opinions. We can pray for them, educate them, admonish them (all works of mercy), but we are not in a position to make a determination about the status of their heart, mind, or soul.

**
It is not our place to determine whether they fit that definition**. It is beyond our purview. Wasting energy slinging judgments about that could be better spent praying for them.

That’s the point.
Making that “determination” is not within our reach.
Praying for such folks is the much better option.

 

[guanophore]

And I don’t know and really don’t care to know or argue with you

This is precisely what is communicated, too, when you claim that “we can’t know” the Truth, and that Truth is a matter of opinion (or individual faith I think is the term you used). Perhaps it is easier to avoid the Truth if one pursuades oneself that one cannot know, or does not really care to know?

Personally I think such a position is an ethical cop out.

 

[Roy5]

Two or three quick comments.

** 1. There are two or three situations in which I think abortion may be the lesser evil**. One story. I know a family some years ago that had six young children. As devout Catholics they practiced the churc-approved method of birth control - rather nervously. Her doctor had warned them that another pregnancy would very possibly mean her death and the death of the baby. Alas, she became pregnant. The doctor recommended an early abortion. Their priest said trust God. They went with the priest. She and the baby died, leaving six young motherless children and a grieving and angry husband. He takes every opportunity now to attack the church. The family became Episcopalian.

 **2. How many innocent people die in wars?** Millions upon millions, including babies in the womb. What - over 100,000 Iragis killed, and the church is rather quiet about it. Was it 60,000,000 that died in World War II. And we could go on. I sometimes wonder why we can become so vociferous when it comes to abortion but rather quiet when it comes to shells and bombs that take so many innocent lives.

** 3. The biggest cause of abortion is the miscarriage**. Who is responsible for those? If God can decide which babies should live and which should die - some might argue - can’t mothers have a say as to whether they are physically, psychologically and financially fit to cope with additional children?

** 4. There really is no proof, apart from church teaching, as to when life in any meaningful sense begins.** I believe Augustine thought it was two months after conception. Could this mean that a first trimester abortion is different from a later abortion? Maybe there’s a moral argument there.

** 5. As many politicians argue, one can be against abortion but not make it a crime.** Most women who seek and have abortions have suffered enough already without punishing them further.

** 6. I recall one woman, many years ago, who had an illegal abortion**. It was done in an unsafe, unhygienic environment, and she died, leaving a husband and several young children. The idea that abortions should be as rare and and as safe as possible may make some sense.

** 7. There is consolation - some would suggest - that babies who are aborted go directly to heaven**, now that limbo seems to have been discarded. So, maybe our tears should not be so much for them as for those women who were under such stress that they sought an abortion.

** 8. I know of one woman who was raped, became pregnant, and was so traumatized by it all that she was determined to commit suicide.** Her devout Catholic mother, who could not convince her to have the child adopted, etc., finally talked her into an abortion instead. Later, the young woman was married, had a fine family, and lived a happy life.
I am generally against abortion. But I do believe there are exceptional situations.

 

[Tigg]

… She already stated that the use of the morning-after pill is sanctioned as okay by US Bishops so how is she dissenting there?

Can someone please help me? I’ve tried, but been unable to find the USCCB statement on their approval of this. Especially in light of this Vatican document, which I understand was written after certain legislation was passed in Italy, but nonetheless applies to the universal church.

It is clear, therefore, that the proven “anti-implantation” action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

Was there a later clarification from the Vatican? I would appreciate a link. If not, then the USCCB, as an independent and bureaucratic body, may not legitimately issue approval on this moral issue since it has no teaching authority unto/by itself.

 

[CountrySinger]

I certainly can’t speak for Catharina but I read her remarks very differently than you. I believe she was simply pointing out that to be a Catholic in good standing you must accept the tenants of the faith. If a Catholic persistently dissents or refuses to accept a tenant of the faith they put themselves outside the Church via Latae Sententiae. Richard L Conte authored an article on his blog (Catholic Planet) titled, “Abortion and Excommunication”. The following excerpts are appropriate to the discussion:

So no one is inviting a pro-abortion Catholic to leave the Catholic Church since they have automatically done so through their belief (contrary the infallible teaching of the Church) that a procured abortion under any circumstances is acceptable.

As for your statement it is not too far from the truth. As I mentioned on another post in this thread, Vatican I (a doctrinal council) declared in Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8 all that a Catholic must believe to be a Catholic: It reads:

So the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, has given us the tenants by which Christ wants us to live. It’s up to us to accept His teachings or use our free will to take the road to destruction.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

But how can the policy of “shut your mouth, don’t think, and take it” help build faith? I find it insulting. I have doubts about some Catholic teachings, and if I just ignore it, and follow blindly, how does that help me? I know myself, and if I don’t find out, I will rebel big time. Or act one way, and think another (which is what I’m doing now). I know I can’t live that way for too much longer. My mom always said I would hate my brain as I got older.

I’m not trying to act like a smart aleck, but I need to concrete proof other than “the Church says so”. I have an appointment to speak to a priest later today, and I’m going to lay it out there. His advice will probably be “leave, so I donMt have to deal with you”.

By the way, I’m not acting against Catholic teaching. On the surface I look like a devout Catholic, and I would never advise to go against Catholic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

Why would you say that?
You refuse to name your faith or belief system -
that makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.
No one knows your current frame of reference.

Use the links under his name to find “all posts by…”

You will quickly learn that he was baptized Catholic and was confirmed last year (?) while still in a state of dissention against the Teachings of the Church.

Give him some credit, though, because at least he has stopped claiming to be Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Who is Catholic, Bob, could depend on who one asks or where one is.

Yes, it “could”. However, such an approach emanates from moral relativism and denial of the Truth.

The Catholic Church is defined by the One who founded her, and those belonging to her by His standards, not ours. It is not a democracy, it is a theocracy.

 

[catharina]

Use the links under his name to find “all posts by…”

You will quickly learn that he was baptized Catholic and was confirmed last year (?) while still in a state of dissention against the Teachings of the Church.

**Give him some credit, though, because at least he has stopped claiming to be Catholic. **

For that fact alone, I do give credit to him.

 

[guanophore]

By the time a woman found out that she’s pregnant, implantation have occurred.

**Week 1 of pregnancy **- starts on the last day of the previous menstrual cycle. There is no actual baby at this week. No ovum was released.

That doesn’t make any sense, Eric. “Pregnancy” is the state of carrying a fertilized egg. The last day of the menstrual cycle cannot be considered part of a pregnancy BECAUSE no ovum was released or fertilized. It is required here for you to cite your sources. ARe you getting this from somewhere else, or are you making it up as you go along?

**Week 2 of pregnancy **- Ovum is usually released on the last day of week 2, or the first day of week 3 (plus or minus).
-Lifespan of an ovum is only about 24 hours, so conception usually happens less then a day after ovulation.

After which event a person could then be considered “pregnant”, but not before.

 

[guanophore]

And here is the very essence of moral relativism which says if it is ”my truth” then it is okay to believe. Objective truth is outright denied and my subjective consciousness reigns over conformity to any godly authority such as a church or magisterium.

---

Mike, I think you have just accurately summarized his religious affiliation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That doesn’t make any sense, Eric. “Pregnancy” is the state of carrying a fertilized egg. The last day of the menstrual cycle cannot be considered part of a pregnancy BECAUSE no ovum was released or fertilized. It is required here for you to cite your sources. ARe you getting this from somewhere else, or are you making it up as you go along?

After which event a person could then be considered “pregnant”, but not before.

Pregnancy is traditionally dated at the date of the last menstrual period. That’s true.

 

[guanophore]

All the while we could have been using some of this energy to further other causes.

Matt, I think you will find, eventually, that no amount of promoting your agenda of moral relativism on CAF is going to further your cause. Faithful Catholics cannot embrace moral relativism, or the “pro-choice” stance. As Catharina has staded - these “causes” have already been settled for us.

 

[Eric_Peter]

That doesn’t make any sense, Eric. “Pregnancy” is the state of carrying a fertilized egg. The last day of the menstrual cycle cannot be considered part of a pregnancy BECAUSE no ovum was released or fertilized. It is required here for you to cite your sources. ARe you getting this from somewhere else, or are you making it up as you go along?

After which event a person could then be considered “pregnant”, but not before.

you can type “Fetal Development” to the google search engine.

But here’s the reason. one cannot know exactly when ovulation happens. It can be as early as 10th day to as late as 21st day. Some even earlier or later.
What can be sure is, the last day of the menstrual cycle.
And the last day of menstrual cycle is also the first day of menstrual cycle.

I do not make this up at all.

 

[guanophore]

The abortion issue also deals with women's rights to privacy for instance.

Yes, just like the issue of battery deals with one’s right to swing one’s fists. You can swing your fists as frequently and vehemently as you desire, but your right to swinging them ends where the tip of my nose begins.

It is incumbent upon Catholics to defend those who cannot speak up for themselves, and this includes unborn children. So, while I wholeheartedly support women’s right to privacy (as I do your right to swing your fists), it does not extend into the realm of taking innocent human life.

 

[guanophore]

So, if a Catholic is pro-choice, they should leave the Church?

It is more accurate to say that they have already left the Church. This position is inconsistent with being in communion with the Church.

Is that also true for any other teachings of the Church? If someone doesn’t beleive 100 % of the Church’s teachings, they are ex- Catholics?

There are several levels of teaching in the Church, but in general, yes. If a person rejects the teachings, they have separated themselves from Catholicity.

That being said, there are many reasons besides “dissent” that one might not believe. Much more common is a lack of catechesis. If people understood the teachings, they would embrace them. This is not the same as dissent, but it is still the responsibility of the person, since we are all called to study to show ourselves approved. “Unbelief”, when one has not been adequately instructed is pretty much the default state we are all in as human beings.

As a someone who is questioning my beliefs, that is VERY interesting… Nice to know that the Church is “open to questions” from its members. Shut Up and Believe seems to be the motto of the Catholic Church.

It may seem that way to you because you have not studied your faith. Many of us never took upon ourselves the responsibility to grow in the faith (after childhood catechism).

The other peice of it has to do with the attitude of the questioning. If we question with the humble attitude of faith, seeking understanding, then we will learn a lot more a lot faster.

If we start with an attitude of hostilty, criticism, unbeliefe or defiance then it will be much more difficult to progress through the questions.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, no…the denial of one revealed truth is called heresy.

Such a term can only be applied to those who have previously embraced that revealed truth, then willfully and knowingly departed from it in favor of an alternate belief. In this case, there is no evidence that there was EVER any adherance to the revealed truth.

 Without objective truth, we can all wander around sprouting our own theories and the foundation of our very faith is lost amid the debate.

Another very good summary of the affiliation of the subject.

 

[guanophore]

I feel especially sorry for new Catholics coming on board who are often on this forum to learn. How confused must they be?

It cuts down the confusion a lot when people like Matt have the integrity to not advertise an affiliation that will mislead them.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes as I remember as well. And I do not identify Catholic here so why would I defend a Catholic Church teaching if I disagree with it?.

Well, for one thing you must excuse posters who assume you are, because you’ve, well, said you were.

The question was why do people stay. And the answer is if some of us see enough good within to stay, Baptism is essential and sufficient to be considered a member of the Catholic Church. Perhaps with an adjective you might like to add, but nevertheless Catholic according to the Church. And of course being non-progressive does not exclude the possibilty of sin. Peace.

All can claim membership. But I also gave you an answer which included another reason being is that the progressives still see some of Christ’s Gospel message being done, ie, service to the poor, the sick, and so forth. Although my priest recentty said his answer to some of the poor even in the current US economy was for the poor to get a job and I nearly walked out of Mass. And I listed some other reasons. But you didn’t like my answers. So anyway those more active are baptized members too.

I know that Gurney. You were knd to point out where my views seem to fit and if I weren’t Catholic, TEC is indeed one I’d consider. “Banish” was just my lame attempt at TEC humor for the more conservative elements of our forum. But I know you would not send another brother to banishment in TEC if you thought they were THAT bad! We’re cool. Best wishes in your final days of school, enjoy the trip and don’t forget the Dodger… uh I mean Giants game next mo.

 

[Eric_Peter]

may i know, what are the rights to privacy?
privacy of what?