Pro-choice Catholics

[CMatt25]

Well I kind of understand Matt though. He’s going by what Christ Himself said, when He instructed the Apostles to preach to the nations. He said that if people didn’t listen to them, they were to shake the dust from their homes and towns, and go on to the next ones. He didn’t say to force unbelievers to believe, or to force them to comply. He said to move on and continue teaching to those who were receptive to The Word, and to teach to those who wanted to be taught. By Christ’s own words, our Christian faith requires we not force others to believe what we believe, or to comply with the rules and laws of our religion. By Christ’s own words we’re to teach without condemnation and without an iron fist, and without shackles. People have to come to God on their own, not be dragged. That doesn’t work.

Thank you Rence. Again you speak better than I.

 

[Toomey1979]

Then you are separating yourself from the truth.
The “law” that is embraced by so many young folks
only became LAW 40 yrs ago. Until then,
ALL humanity of faith (any Christian faith)
agreed that abortion is murder most vile.

To put it simply, you’ve been chewed up
and swallowed by an evil campaign of public relations.

Good luck with that.

What used to be the law is irrelevant. We used to have legal slavery too.

So forcing a women to die in a pregnacy(regardless if the baby lives[besides the point I guess]) is the pro-life position. Tha sounds like an evil campaign to me. In fact I’m pretty sure that most “humanity of faith” (whoever that is) is not with you on that one either.

 

[CMatt25]

Currently, the legal right to consent or refuse treatment lies with the woman.

Exactly

 

[Toomey1979]

Yes. It is never permissible to take an innocent life just to save your own. Don’t you remember what Jesus taught about “no greater love”?

Yes. If someone wrongs me, how does it make sense to kill another innocent victim?

Policy cannot criminalize anyone. Murder is wrong. The taking of innocent life is always and every where wrong.

Actually the Bible gives more value to the woman life over the fetus. Somewhere in Exodus. Makes sense really. I don’t think that all abortion (whether or not they are immoral) are tantamount to murder. There is a point in fetal development that you clearly have a viable baby but it aint at conception. A clump of dividing cells is hardly a baby.

 

[guanophore]

I can’t bring myself to fight for the legal reproductive rights of women, and the rights of women as patients, to be taken away from them in cases of rape and when their lives are in danger. It’s not something I can even bring myself to do. It goes against my conscience in the worst way. Forcing women to be pregnant by rape, or when their lives are in danger, is immoral to me and I certainly won’t “fight” to have their rights taken away from them. My counsel is always for life, but I won’t hold a woman down to conform to rules she doesn’t believe in, doesn’t honor, and wants no part of. It’s her choice to make.

I understand your objection. But it is not the law that “forces” a woman to be pregnant in the case of rape, but the rapist.

The fact that women’s lives may be endangered by a pregnancy is not caused by law either. Iti s a natural function of the fallen world in which we live.

Women are not harmed by living within the limitations of natural consequences. Women are saved from this harm not by law, but by God’s grace.

Women are not saved from harm by taking innocent life to preserve their own. Instead, they are robbed of the opporunity to experience a love that can be no greater in human experience, to lay theirs down for another.

 

[catharina]

What used to be the law is irrelevant. We used to have legal slavery too.

So forcing a women to die in a pregnacy(regardless if the baby lives[besides the point I guess]) is the pro-life position. Tha sounds like an evil campaign to me. In fact I’m pretty sure that most “humanity of faith” (whoever that is) is not with you on that one either.

Catholic teaching, Christian teaching has NEVER supported abortion.
You can pretend otherwise - but then you’re stuck with a life of pretense.

As for slavery, the Bible acknowledged slavery.
Why not - it was a common practice.
It never supported slavery as a good - just as a reality.
What Jewish law said or didn’t say is irrelevant to abortion.
We are to live under a “new law” that calls life sacred.
Christianity has NEVER supported abortion.
You might as well quit your pretense regarding that.
Holding such as ‘truth’ will lead you to the father of lies.

 

[guanophore]

Poor baby who has the misfortune of having a rapist father.

Not to worry, it doesn’t sound like the baby will live long enough to have any regrets.

 

[CMatt25]

It’s rather condescending to assume that we’re all just not smart enough to grasp such a complex idea. I grasp it entirely. I just happen to believe that rights do not exist conditionally depepending on how many people believe them. Many people in the deep south at one point simply did not believe that African Americans were people, or that they had the same rights; however, they do, regardles of what the confederates or the KK or the segregationists thought, and we *forced *them to acknowledge this truth, and the existence of the absolute, inalentable rights of African Americans. They had no choice. Nobody forced them to believe in those rights, but it was certainly right not to permit their false beliefs to infringe on the rights of others.

So when you say “democracy is about a plurality of beliefs” indeed, it is. But that plurality has limits. Some people think spousal rape is not wrong, and that a man has a right to his wife’s body. He is wrong regardless of the fact that he believes, and the belief his supposed “right” simply does not exist, no matter how many people think it does.

One can apply the same logic to abortion. You’re practically saying we should tolerate a certain kind of manslaughter simply because many people don’t think it’s manslaughter. If it is, ifit is killing a living human being, which would be considered a legal person if the law of the land were consistent, then why abortion on demand be illegal? A great many laws have been passed without the explicit consent of the people (often in explicit contradiction to the will of the people) to protect the rights of others. Ultimately, of course, I think you still fail to grasp that pro-lifers are not merely theocrats trying to impose their morality on others (though a few may be), but that most actually really believe that fetuses (or feti? a latin word?) are human beings, in a juristic sense of the word. And in a democracy, a person’s freedom of choice reaches its limits where their choices infringe on the rights and freedoms of others; I think abortion is one such circumstance. Consensus (or a lack of consensus) does should not dictate whether or not we acknowledge people’s *inalienable *rights.

One of my favorite quotes was by the German poet Friedrich Schiller, “Live in your age, but do not be its creature.”

Not saying anyone is not smart enough. Just that this is all the more reason society arrives at a law for the land because different people think and believe differently about many things including about who gets rights in this case. The woman or the unborn embryo or fetus. And differences as to at what point full civil rights are given. So we have the law to grasp and live by.

 

[Toomey1979]

Catholic teaching, Christian teaching has NEVER supported abortion.
You can pretend otherwise - but then you’re stuck with a life of pretense.

As for slavery, the Bible acknowledged slavery.
Why not - it was a common practice.
It never supported slavery as a good - just as a reality.
What Jewish law said or didn’t say is irrelevant to abortion.
We are to live under a “new law” that calls life sacred.
Christianity has NEVER supported abortion.
You might as well quit your pretense regarding that.
Holding such as ‘truth’ will lead you to the father of lies.

So what…until about 40 years ago we believed that all babies went to limbo and the slavery was perfectly acceptable. Christianity often changes its attitude toward things. I hope we change it again.

 

[guanophore]

Rence as usual you explain choice far better than I with this post. You mention choice is a testimony to one’s beliefs. Exactly. If I were a woman I don’t see myself choosing abortion. Frankly though I am relieved as a guy I never have to walk in a woman’s shoes as to what she might choose in her circumstances. But indeed it makes me shudder as well if rights were stripped.

What you are saying is that a woman has a "right’ to take the life of another human being. Where do you see that she has that?

 

[Newbie2]

I may be repeating POVs, but 40 pages of posts is a lot to scan through.
Anyway…

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

Please keep in mind that some CAF forumites present what they think is the thinking of the Church, or present it in a…let’s say “brusque” manner that may paint the Church in a sort of benevolent dictatorship. Some would also say that if one isn’t in complete agreement with the Church in all matters that they can not call themself Catholic.

I would beg to differ, suggesting that one who disagrees is perhaps not a “good Catholic” or is perhaps a “dissenting Catholic” but a Catholic nontheless.

We are encouraged to engage our intellect when considering Chruch teachings. This may mean struggling at times with Church teachings. We have to be clear about what we mean by “disagree”, “dissent” or “struggle with”, the latter being my preferred term.

“Dissent” usually refers to public disagreement to the point of saying the Church is “wrong”. That is not tolerable. One cannot be a good Catholic and publically dissent on Church teachings.

“Disagree” has a more flexible use. Theologians are free to disagree with Church teachings, but it must be in the spirit of helping the Church explore the deeper meanings of such teachings i.e. they must be in the spirit of, for example, better defining or refining the teachings. However, they cannot and must not dissent. Lay persons and clergy may privately “disagree” with Church teachings, but only in a sense of what I prefer to call it, “struggle with”:

It is perfectly OK to acknowledge the authority of the Church to define a teaching while all the while “struggling” with it, again, as long as one struggles in an effort to understand the Church’s definition and meaning of a particular teaching.

Some may not agree with my terminology and/or explanations and may be able to say what I’m saying better. However, my point is that we as Catholics certainly are not expected to simply “Shut up and believe”; it’s more complicated than that.

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.

Like I said, it’s OK to struggle. There are a couple teachings that I struggle with. What I find helpful is to say to myself and to the Lord in prayer, “I accept your Church as teaching your Truth. However, I do not understand her logic or position on (insert problem teaching here). I struggle with accepting it. Help me to understand it in a way that I can accept it”.

 

[CMatt25]

A couple years ago my Polish pastor gave a sermon stating that a Catholic could not vote for pro-abortion candidate. He said that being he had only lived in the United States for a few years he was quite surprised that anybody would even consider that to be a controversial statement. After Mass a parishioner stopped him and told him he didn’t understand-that in the United States we have free speech and freedom to vote for anyone we want to. . Without missing a beat he replied" yes ,you do indeed have the freedom to go to hell!"

He was judging a person was going to hell if they voted a certain way?

 

[guanophore]

What used to be the law is irrelevant. We used to have legal slavery too.

Good testimony that a law is not necessarily moral.

So forcing a women to die in a pregnacy(regardless if the baby lives[besides the point I guess]) is the pro-life position.

No. The pro life position never “forces” death on anyone - a pregnant woman, the unfortunate child who is the product of a rape, or the elderly person who is a pain in everyones backside so they wish she were better off dead.

Woman die in pregnancy and childbirth. It is a consequence of the fallen world in which we live. Sometimes, treatment of the woman causes an unwanted loss of the pregnancy. This is not an abortion, which is a deliberate removal of the child for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy.

We don’t get to decide who lives and dies. That’s the point.

Tha sounds like an evil campaign to me. In fact I’m pretty sure that most “humanity of faith” (whoever that is) is not with you on that one either.

No “campaign”, Toomey, just the good news of Jesus Christ.

John 15:13-15
13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Laying our lives down to follow His commandments (thou shalt not kill) is the greatest love we can have.

 

[Toomey1979]

Good testimony that a law is not necessarily moral.

No. The pro life position never “forces” death on anyone - a pregnant woman, the unfortunate child who is the product of a rape, or the elderly person who is a pain in everyones backside so they wish she were better off dead.

Woman die in pregnancy and childbirth. It is a consequence of the fallen world in which we live. Sometimes, treatment of the woman causes an unwanted loss of the pregnancy. This is not an abortion, which is a deliberate removal of the child for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy.

We don’t get to decide who lives and dies. That’s the point.

No “campaign”, Toomey, just the good news of Jesus Christ.

John 15:13-15
13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Laying our lives down to follow His commandments (thou shalt not kill) is the greatest love we can have.

That is such a cop-out. There are circumstances (rare may they be) when a pregnancy will kill child and mother. Your position is to stand back, watch child and mother die, and then throw up your hands and say “Not my fault”. That’s not very pro-life is it? Pro-religion at the expense of a woman’s life maybe, but not pro-life.

 

[PRmerger]

Like I said, it’s OK to struggle. There are a couple teachings that I struggle with. What I find helpful is to say to myself and to the Lord in prayer, “I accept your Church as teaching your Truth. However, I do not understand her logic or position on (insert problem teaching here). I struggle with accepting it. Help me to understand it in a way that I can accept it”.

Indeed.

Though I question and wrangle and struggle with many a Catholic teaching (and have started quite a few threads in my early days here expressing these questions), I still will vigorously defend the Church’s teachings.

For I know that if there’s a disconnect between my understanding and what Christ is proclaiming, most assuredly the problem lies with me.

 

[catharina]

So what…until about 40 years ago we believed that all babies went to limbo and the slavery was perfectly acceptable. Christianity often changes its attitude toward things. I hope we change it again.

Forty years ago, you believed slavery was acceptable.
Where do you live?

Guessing that unbaptized babies went to limbo,
that is asserting that they were unlikely to go to hell …
is light years removed from giving an OK to killing babies.

Why do you say you’re Catholic?
Were you baptized, confirmed, educated as a Catholic?
If so, why do you act so surprised regarding the laws of the church?
The Church has always, will always condemn abortion as an intrinsic evil.
Are you pretending this is “news” to you?

WHY?

 

[PRmerger]

That is such a cop-out. There are circumstances (rare may they be) when a pregnancy will kill child and mother.

Can you please cite a source in which abortion was offered, the procedure was declined, and the mom and baby died?

(Note: anecdotal evidence, sadly, is not reliable on a forum such as this.)

 

[catharina]

That is such a cop-out. There are circumstances (rare may they be) when a pregnancy will kill child and mother. Your position is to stand back, watch child and mother die, and then throw up your hands and say “Not my fault”. That’s not very pro-life is it? Pro-religion at the expense of a woman’s life maybe, but not pro-life.

Whereas your stance is anti-law of GOD.
Terrifically sad. Terrifically horrible.

 

[Toomey1979]

Can you please cite a source in which abortion was offered, the procedure was declined, and the mom and baby died?

(Note: anecdotal evidence, sadly, is not reliable on a forum such as this.)

Are you seriously suggesting that women and children don’t die in pregnancy. Does that have to be proved?

 

[Toomey1979]

Whereas your stance is anti-law of GOD.
Terrifically sad. Terrifically horrible.

Ditto. See you at judgement day.