Pro-Choice Catholics

[LisaA]

Lisa, so you’re saying there is NO WAY a Catholic can be pro-choice in the strict sense of understanding, but not agreeing with, other religious views held by women and their families regarding abortion. If one is Catholic, one MUST disrespect and deny people’s decisions to have an abortion who are NOT Catholic and follow their own religious principles. Is that the Catholic position?

BTW, I am NOT anti-gun. I’ve stated that law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their families. However, I am in favor of enforcing tough gun restrictions in all states. But that’s another issue which we’ve already discussed ad nauseum.

There are better catechists than I here so hopefully they will weigh in. No a Catholic cannot be “pro choice” because abortion is always evil. It’s evil when we do it. It’s evil when others do it. It is evil.

We cannot agree with other religious views that accept abortion. A religious belief does not over ride an intrinsic human right, to life. You could as easily say if a religious belief is that we can kill those caught in adultery or blaspheming or those who believe in honor killings, then it’s fine for those people to practice these evil acts as a religious belief.

We don’t give people a ‘pass’ because they are either ignorant of humanity or because they do not have a basic moral code.

Lisa

 

[St_Francis]

I believe freedom to practice one’s religion is also a social issue. Torah Judaism requires abortion in certain circumstances when the mother’s life or health are endangered, and has leniencies in cases of rape and incest.

Have you looked into when this is necessary under Torah law? Because it seems that these circumstances would call for a C-section to be performed: an option not available to Jews way back when.

As to Quakerism… well, any religion can “arise” and teach anything it wants, no? And then the adherents can do whatever they want under the freedom of religion? Some things are simply not permitted, even if some claim their religion, such as it is, permits it. Thus, Mormons were forbidden to be polygamous, some sect was forbidden to use certain illegal drugs, etc.

 

[meltzerboy]

Have you looked into when this is necessary under Torah law? Because it seems that these circumstances would call for a C-section to be performed: an option not available to Jews way back when.

As to Quakerism… well, any religion can “arise” and teach anything it wants, no? And then the adherents can do whatever they want under the freedom of religion? Some things are simply not permitted, even if some claim their religion, such as it is, permits it. Thus, Mormons were forbidden to be polygamous, some sect was forbidden to use certain illegal drugs, etc.

I understand your point. And some wish to outlaw male circumcision, which they call mutilation, even though it is a religious ritual in both Judaism and Islam. These cases must be considered carefully since freedom of religion is so important to us as a society.

I have looked into Torah and Talmud Law and the rationale for abortion in certain cases.

 

[Rence]

Lisa, so you’re saying there is NO WAY a Catholic can be pro-choice in the strict sense of understanding, but not agreeing with, other religious views held by women and their families regarding abortion. If one is Catholic, one MUST disrespect and deny people’s decisions to have an abortion who are NOT Catholic and follow their own religious principles. Is that the Catholic position?.

No one on this website is in a position to answer your above question as a representative of the Church. The Church does not contradict iteself and very much supports freedom of religion. The Church does not attempt to forbid others from following the laws of their own religion. On the one hand the Church forbids abortion in every and all circumstances for Catholics. On the other, they support freedom of religion. Those who are not Catholic are not obligated to follow Catholic rules and laws. The Jewish laws regarding protecting the woman’s life over the unborn in the case where the woman’s life is in danger is pretty clear. I’d recommend asking a Bishop about it rather than an online forum.

 

[polki]

One of the five non-negotiable voting issues for Catholics is abortion. If a Catholic is to practice his/her faith, they cannot vote pro-abortion because it is an intrinsic evil.

Right to Life ranks above Freedom of Religion. If you don’t have Life, no other rights exist. Life comes first.

 

[SuzanneD]

You can be a Catholic and be"pro-choice", You would just be in error, and not following the clear teaching of your church, or the bible.

 

[john78]

Putting aside the knee jerk reactions and yes, sometimes, attacks… what is the best way to debate a pro-choice Catholic?

Why would one want to debate someone who is pro-choice and claims to be catholic . ?

Is the debate for pure debating with no purpose, if so it is just a waste of time, if the purpose of the debate is to inform and change ones mind then there is a good reason to debate that individual.

You can be a Catholic and be"pro-choice", You would just be in error, and not following the clear teaching of your church, or the bible

.

So then who should confront such a person, clergy or a lay person ?

 

[Brandall]

Putting aside the knee jerk reactions and yes, sometimes, attacks… what is the best way to debate a pro-choice Catholic?

It seems as if to be pro-choice they simply discard Church teaching. But how can you ignore Church teaching and still call yourself Catholic?

The argument that myself and others have been making is simply that you cannot call yourself Catholic if you do reject Catholic teaching. It makes as much sense as calling yourself a cat when you’re really a dog.

But this argument seems ineffective.

How would YOU discourse with a pro-choice Catholic who dismisses Church teaching off hand?

I’m not a Catholic, at least not yet. It’s always been admirable the way the Catholic Church has consistently been anti abortion. However, I’ve always thought it odd that they be anti abortion and anti contraception at the same time.

If I do start RCIA in August, I won’t personally have any problems with avoiding contraception as it is a certainty that my wife is beyond child bearing years. At this time, I do lack a proper understanding of why the church prohibits contraception but will delve into that in the next few months and hopefully reach an understanding.

I’ve been anti abortion for as long as I was old enough to understand what it was. I’m not interested in debating anyone on the subject as it’s a subject where it’s too rare for anyone to change their mind on the subject. Just how can you argue with anyone that hasn’t a proper respect for human life? For whatever reason, there is a large group of people that find it morally acceptable to stop a beating heart of another human. When someone feels like that, how do you even begin to argue.

The PR arm of the baby killers has been near genius in framing the argument around women’s rights. Somehow they have managed to convince nearly half the population that being against abortion is disrespectful to women. They’ve convinced them that a baby isn’t human prior to birth. There are huge numbers of people that their hot button issue in voting is over the right for a woman killing her baby.

Do you ever wonder if the argument was over aborting puppies, how many of the pro abortion group would change their tunes. I’m betting more of them would be upset over killing puppies than they are of killing humans.

I’m consistently pro life. I think abortion is wrong and I think the death penalty is wrong. One of these opinions I’ve held forever, abortion, and the other I’ve just come to over the last decade or so. In my opinion, I don’t think abortion is a hot button issue for me. It’s important, but not the only thing I’m looking at when I vote, it’s not my number one issue. However, given the choice of two baby killers, I’ll abstain from voting. Given the choice of a baby killer and a pro life convert (one that converted in the interests of politics), I’ll also abstain.

The sad fact is, it isn’t going to change. Abortion will be widely available during the rest of my life and probably long after. I’m glad the Catholic Church proudly condemns the process and I’m glad to join her in that. Reality though, is reality.

“how can you ignore Church teaching and still call yourself Catholic?” This was a part of the original post and it kind of brought a smile to my face. I’ve heard it said in these forums that once you’re a Catholic, you always are. In the Catholic Church I attend, attendance at Christmas and Easter was more than double what it is most any other week of the year. (My wife calls this type of christian “Chreasters” as they only attend Christmas and Easter.) I heard a speaker at a Catholic Church recently claim that the largest religious group in the US was Catholic and the second largest group was former Catholics. Regardless, when you hear it quoted that sixty some odd million people in the US are Catholic, a large percentage of those are in name only. However, they’re still Catholic.

 

[LisaA]

I’m not a Catholic, at least not yet. It’s always been admirable the way the Catholic Church has consistently been anti abortion. However, I’ve always thought it odd that they be anti abortion and anti contraception at the same time.

If I do start RCIA in August, I won’t personally have any problems with avoiding contraception as it is a certainty that my wife is beyond child bearing years. At this time, I do lack a proper understanding of why the church prohibits contraception but will delve into that in the next few months and hopefully reach an understanding.

I’ve been anti abortion for as long as I was old enough to understand what it was. I’m not interested in debating anyone on the subject as it’s a subject where it’s too rare for anyone to change their mind on the subject. Just how can you argue with anyone that hasn’t a proper respect for human life? For whatever reason, there is a large group of people that find it morally acceptable to stop a beating heart of another human. When someone feels like that, how do you even begin to argue.

First I hope you continue on your journey and come Home to the Church. RCIA may not be that helpful in understanding the Catholic teaching regarding contraception. I would suggest such works as JPII’s Theology of the Body and other material that explains how contracepting creates barriers to the self giving love within marriage. I have frankly learned a lot about this (although I too am past childbearing age) through EWTN and Catholic Radio. So do augment your RCIA experience with other sources if you want to understand better.

Regarding arguing with someone who is pro-abortion, conversions might be rare but they can be quite dramatic. Dr Bernard Nathienson a former abortion provider completely reversed his former stance, Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood manager also has an amazing story to tell. So do not be discouraged. People who have the intellectual capacity to understand these concepts can change their mind. I was an atheist and a pro abort for a long time. I don’t recall when I changed but I think in my forties and I became a Catholic in 2005.

Best of blessings on your journey.
Lisa

 

[Mulligan2]

One of the five non-negotiable voting issues for Catholics is abortion. If a Catholic is to practice his/her faith, they cannot vote pro-abortion because it is an intrinsic evil.

Right to Life ranks above Freedom of Religion. If you don’t have Life, no other rights exist. Life comes first.

As I recall, these so-called non-negotiable issues were part of a voting guide of some sort. Was this voting guide issued by The Pope? My intuition tells me that it wasn’t.

 

[Brandall]

As I recall, these so-called non-negotiable issues were part of a voting guide of some sort. Was this voting guide issued by The Pope? My intuition tells me that it wasn’t.

I’m wondering if you are thinking of this guide released by the USCCB usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

I read it last year but not recently. If my recollection serves, there were no issues that it was exactly definitive about, such as “non-negotiable issues” such as abortion. Just more of a reminder of the Church’s stance and the positives that are gained in certain areas. Even incremental positives.

I think there was an effort to avoid “thou shall” and “thou shall not”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m not a Catholic, at least not yet. It’s always been admirable the way the Catholic Church has consistently been anti abortion. However, I’ve always thought it odd that they be anti abortion and anti contraception at the same time.

If I do start RCIA in August, I won’t personally have any problems with avoiding contraception as it is a certainty that my wife is beyond child bearing years. At this time, I do lack a proper understanding of why the church prohibits contraception but will delve into that in the next few months and hopefully reach an understanding.

I can explain the prohibition against artificial contraception. We are told by God to unite as husband and wife, and procreate, from when He first created man and woman. At no point in time did God say, “And now, you can stop procreating because it’s more fun if you don’t have children from sex.” In fact, the contraceptive mentality is why we have legalized abortion in the first place. When you remove conceiving children from the sexual act, they become a problem when they do happen, because you were trying to prevent them. Even though children are a NATURAL result of sexual intercourse, suddenly you’ve put them into another category of being an obstacle to your fun and pleasure. So an abortion solves that “problem.” As President Obama himself said, he wouldn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby,” were they to have premarital sex.

The more contraception, the more abortions. One begets the other, along with many other evils of our time.

Welcome home.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No one on this website is in a position to answer your above question as a representative of the Church. The Church does not contradict iteself and very much supports freedom of religion. The Church does not attempt to forbid others from following the laws of their own religion. On the one hand the Church forbids abortion in every and all circumstances for Catholics. On the other, they support freedom of religion. Those who are not Catholic are not obligated to follow Catholic rules and laws. The Jewish laws regarding protecting the woman’s life over the unborn in the case where the woman’s life is in danger is pretty clear. I’d recommend asking a Bishop about it rather than an online forum.

This is not quite accurate, Rence, regarding Church position.
The Church’s position on freedom of religion does not contradict two requirements on the part of the Church: (1) that the Church, as an institution, advocates moral positions to all of society, Catholic and not, believers and not; in that function she advocates against all abortion for society as a whole, which would include legislative and many other efforts; (2) that the individual Catholic, lay, clergy, or religious, single or married, male or female, believe in communion with Rome with regard to all such moral positions, including abortion – and not just for self, but for others.

Further,
Advocacy, influence, pressure, lobbying, etc. are all permitted by the Church as a religious institution within the statutes of the constitution. None of those activities contradict freedom of (other) religions. And as far as Church teachings go, any lay Catholic here is in fact in a position to comment on this “as representatives of the Church.”: Lay Catholics are commissioned as individuals to represent The Church Militant and to speak on moral matters in the public square. You don’t need a Roman collar or a religious habit to do so, or a special appointment by the Vatican.

JReducation:

The Church is very clear that the proper exercise of democracy is to promote the good. Join to that what Aquinas explains about the highest good. One always has a moral duty to choose the higher of two goods. Finally, add to that the fundamental moral principle in moral theology, a choice for the lesser of two evils is still a choice for evil and man may never choose any evil.

If we take these three principles and all of the other principles taught to us in moral theology we can conclude that we cannot morally vote for a pro-choice candidate. A pro-choice candidate will support an immoral position. To cast ouir vote for such a person is to empower him or her in the wrong direction. Our elected officials must represnt our moral values.

Rerum Novarum, Evangelium Vitae, and Lumen Gentium all make it very clear that government does not exist for its own benefit, but for the benefit of its citizens.

Then we have the moral example of great saints who gave up their lives fighting governments who stood between the citizen and the law of God. All of them were martyred, beginning with the prophets. If we honor the martyrs, we must ask ourselves, why so?

They gave their lives for the faith. This means that they espoused a moral value and a set of beliefs that was in conflict with the state. That’s why the state executed them. Two that should help us in dealing with the state are Thomas More and John Eudes. When the rubber hit the road, they were first and foremost, sons of the Church, then faithful citizens. They gave their lives rather than compromise with an immoral state. More’s last statement is very powerful. “I die a faithful servant of the King, but foremost, a son of the Church.”

Why honor these men and women, if we believe that we can vote for a pro-choice candidate?

All of these principles together, lead to one conclusion. We cannot be faithful to the Catholic Church and empower those who are willing to ignore her. This is why Thomas More and many other martyrs died. They refused to compromise. You’re either a son of the Church or you’r not.

Anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate and honors the martyrs does not understand why the mayrtyrs died.

continuing the same conversation (the thread is closed):

JReducation:

A pro-choice candidate means one that believes that there should be a law that allows women to chooose to have an abortion. Such a law is immoral and has no right to exist. Therefore, you’re voting for someone who believes in the right to a law that is immoral…The Church’s position is very clear. To be against abortion one can never be pro-choice. That’s in canon law. A politician who is pro-choice is automatically excommunicated.

The position of the Church is that there may never be a choice. Since there may never be a choice and this is an infallible truth, which was handed down to us from scripture, through the Fathers and affirmed by his Petrine authority under John Paul II, then there should be no politician who supports a law that gives people a right to make such a choice.

Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

There is no such thing as a pro-choice politician who is against legal abortions. He or she may claim that he would never make use of the law. That’s fine. But it’s not good enough for the Church. He must be committed to abrogate the law or he remains in a state of grave sin and if he is Catholic, he is automatically excommunicated. Why would you vote for someone who has excommunicated himself because he has committed what the Church has called the greatest sin in modern times?

Why would you want to be Catholic and not stand by the Church on this position? As St. Thomas More said, you either are or are not a son of the Church.

continued below…

 

[Elizabeth502]

^^ continuing…

I am simply stating the Church’s position. I want to make it clear that I am far from perfect in my own history. I also affirm three truths about the Catholic identity:

(1) Catholic membership cannot be removed by another person. (And of course, even excommunication does not remove Catholic identity.) All baptized Catholics are members of the Church in a technical sense at minimum.

(2) All Catholics, no matter how zealous and how sincere, are sinners. Sin does not compromise one’s Catholic identity.

(3) The most difficult category is that of fidelity to Church teaching. Again, it does not mean sin and it does not mean doubt. It means full effort & cooperation, which can be called Faithful Catholics, vs. much more lukewarm (or worse, oppositional) Catholics, which can be called unfaithful. I.m.o. most of us have at one time in our lives belonged to the latter category. Certainly I have. I was a Catholic then, yes, just only one technically; I fought against my Catholicism.

Category #3 was once clearly understood by the laity, even by those with very little religion and no formal theological training. That is the difference between Yesterday and Today. Formerly, an unfaithful Catholic identified himself thus:

“I was raised Catholic, but lately [or, for a long time] I have not been a practicing Catholic.”

What that Catholic meant by “not practicing” was:

(a) serious doubts about, or opposition to, Church teachings, which the individual was not making an effort to resolve;
(b) absenting himself from Mass and the sacraments without such doubt, but due to lifestyle choices which prevented reception of Eucharist and increased the lukewarmness factor

IOW, he didn’t call himself “a non-Catholic” or “an ex-Catholic.” He was very clear that the baptismal identity remained, but that he was without ambiguity not in communion with the Church, and to be a legitimately practicing Catholic, he would have to correct those discrepancies, align himself with the mind of the Church, go to Confession, and redouble his efforts at fidelity to the teachings – separate from resistance to sin.

The modernist Catholic often thinks otherwise. Rather, he or she declares that “being” Catholic enables him or her to challenge the Church on fundamental teachings and “still remain Catholic.” Yet, a modern Catholic who thinks that way is incorrect in that thinking. There is nothing in Catholic teaching which allows such a position. Catholic teaching is the same in terms of the category of fidelity and the need for obedience. It has nothing to do with living in a pluralistic society. No matter how irreligious, immoral, hedonistic, and materialistic society is, Catholics are called to be the opposite. And that does not threaten the freedom of religion of any other group or individual. Atheists do not have a monopoly on advocacy. Public advocacy is an equal right shared by all U.S. citizens, regardless of religious identity.

 

[St_Francis]

I understand your point. And some wish to outlaw male circumcision, which they call mutilation, even though it is a religious ritual in both Judaism and Islam. These cases must be considered carefully since freedom of religion is so important to us as a society.

I have looked into Torah and Talmud Law and the rationale for abortion in certain cases.

The basis for Talmudic and even early Christian thinking about the issue of causing a miscarriage stem from lack of knowledge about when the unborn have life *and *from difficulties in knowing whether a woman is pregnant, since there are times when other conditions might mimic early pregnancy, and all these rulings are attempts to judge a matter fairly. Notice that despite these rulings regarding someone’s causing the miscarriage of another, St Thomas Aquinas still condemned abortion as such.

WRT the Talmud’s permitting the dismemberment of the baby when the woman has been in hard non-progressing labor, doctors nowadays monitor labor so intensely that this situation is extremely unlikely to occur. In the case of a woman giving birth so far from medical help that this situation might develop, the likelihood of the appropriate resources (tools, knowledge) being available is extremely low.

Not to mention the fact that by the time this condition develops to this extent the baby has usually already died…

 

[polki]

As I recall, these so-called non-negotiable issues were part of a voting guide of some sort. Was this voting guide issued by The Pope? My intuition tells me that it wasn’t.

I’m not talking about a voting guide. I’m talking about abortion. Is there a Pope who has been pro-abortion?

 

[polki]

"73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…
…In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”. - EVANGELIUM VITAE (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II

 

[St_Francis]

As I recall, these so-called non-negotiable issues were part of a voting guide of some sort. Was this voting guide issued by The Pope? My intuition tells me that it wasn’t.

What is your point? Do you think that only the Pope has the right to talk about Catholic teaching?

The Voting Guide was put out by the USCCB–US Council of Catholic Bishops. The guide explains Church teachings and discusses the relative weight to give to various issues. The Guide is a guide *to the issues, *not to the politicians running for office. It is published to give Catholics a clear understanding of what Catholic teaching is so that they can make an informed decision when they vote.

 

[aux1]

Not to mention the fact that by the time this condition develops to this extent the baby has usually already died…

Not true in case of miscarriage…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

 

[St_Francis]

Not true in case of miscarriage…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

What Meltzerboy and I are discussing is Talmudic rulings which allow killing of the unborn child. This would be a case in which hard labor was extremely prolonged due to the mother’s inability to push the baby out, which can happen due to the position of the baby, the mother’s small size in relation to the baby’s size, entanglement of twins, etc.

This ruling was made long before the advent of modern medicine which is able to monitor labor to a much higher degree and which has other options for dealing with the problem.

The article you posts has several major errors in the first few paragraphs that I can pick out, so I find it untrustworthy.