Pro-Choice Catholics

[Mulligan2]

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.

My point is that I’ve seen various Catholic voter guides - some of which are contradictory and are used by political parties to shamelessly suggest that God supports their political party. I don’t think God is a member of the Republican or Democratic parties.

 

[1AugustSon7]

In the cases I mentioned, abortions are rare, but in certain instances required and, in others, permitted.

The Torah “requires” (prescribes) that a human agent deliberately and wilfully mean to target and destroy a baby’s life while in his mother’s womb? Who are these poor unfortunates whom God has prescribed to death? The Torah teaches that in some instances the wilful destruction of a baby’s life by human agency is “permitted”? What level of authority do these Kosher abortions have, and from what are these maxims even deduced? How is it more than mere opinion or conjecture, like so much of Torah Judaism? Frankly, in the interest of the honour of the Torah, I will assume that these Kosher killings are just your opinion; I don’t want to hear of yet another way of excusing killing the guiltless by draping it up in the holy.

 

[St_Francis]

The Torah “requires” (prescribes) that a human agent deliberately and wilfully mean to target and destroy a baby’s life while in his mother’s womb? Who are these poor unfortunates whom God has prescribed to death? The Torah teaches that in some instances the wilful destruction of a baby’s life by human agency is “permitted”? What level of authority do these Kosher abortions have, and from what are these maxims even deduced? How is it more than mere opinion or conjecture, like so much of Torah Judaism? Frankly, in the interest of the honour of the Torah, I will assume that these Kosher killings are just your opinion; I don’t want to hear of yet another way of excusing killing the guiltless by draping it up in the holy.

It’s not the Torah which states this; it’s the Talmud, which is a compilation of Jewish law and commentary over the centuries. As far as I can tell, it is only one Jewish commentator who suggested this, but he is very highly regarded, even being mentioned in St Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.

But just as St Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, so Maimonides could be wrong about this. Neither is infallible.

 

[St_Francis]

My point is that I’ve seen various Catholic voter guides - some of which are contradictory and are used by political parties to shamelessly suggest that God supports their political party. I don’t think God is a member of the Republican or Democratic parties.

I agree with you that God is not a member of either party, and in fact US political thought tends to be based on so-called Enlightenment thinking and its off-shoots, so it’s really hard to fit a Godly politics into the US schema.

The USCCB guide was widely criticized for being too vague, insufficiently educational, and very erratic in its presentation.

 

[mlz]

If they are or claim to be a person of faith I would ask them if they believe they have soul. (Christians believe this) then ask when God gives a person a soul… At conception. 3 months gestation… Right before birth, after birth or only a soul if you are wanted!!!
mlz

 

[meltzerboy]

The Torah “requires” (prescribes) that a human agent deliberately and wilfully mean to target and destroy a baby’s life while in his mother’s womb? Who are these poor unfortunates whom God has prescribed to death? The Torah teaches that in some instances the wilful destruction of a baby’s life by human agency is “permitted”? What level of authority do these Kosher abortions have, and from what are these maxims even deduced? How is it more than mere opinion or conjecture, like so much of Torah Judaism? Frankly, in the interest of the honour of the Torah, I will assume that these Kosher killings are just your opinion; I don’t want to hear of yet another way of excusing killing the guiltless by draping it up in the holy.

I’m not going to debate the Jewish position according to the Written and Oral Laws regarding abortion, especially on a Catholic Forum! Jewish Law in no way indicates that abortion should be a free-for-all act. If you are interested, I would suggest doing your own research on this matter online. My point in mentioning it at all was to bring up the issue of religious liberty in relation to any abortion legislation which might have the effect of restricting that liberty. That is all I meant to point out.

 

[edwest2]

I agree with you that God is not a member of either party, and in fact US political thought tends to be based on so-called Enlightenment thinking and its off-shoots, so it’s really hard to fit a Godly politics into the US schema.

The USCCB guide was widely criticized for being too vague, insufficiently educational, and very erratic in its presentation.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the recent USCCB guide, abortion is 100% wrong. Period.

The choice being mentioned here is the death of a unique human being. No hair splitting please.

nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/cardinal-timothy-m-dolan-urges-catholics-to-become-more-politically-active.html?_r=0

Ed

 

[Brandall]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the recent USCCB guide, abortion is 100% wrong. Period.

The choice being mentioned here is the death of a unique human being. No hair splitting please.

nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/cardinal-timothy-m-dolan-urges-catholics-to-become-more-politically-active.html?_r=0

Ed

I’ve never needed anyone or any religious body to convince me that abortion is 100% wrong. Having said that, I’ve always admired the way the Catholic Church has always stood up for the unborn.

Praise be to God!

 

[LisaA]

I’ve never needed anyone or any religious body to convince me that abortion is 100% wrong. Having said that, I’ve always admired the way the Catholic Church has always stood up for the unborn.

Praise be to God!

Thank you for standing with the Church. I became pro life before converting. Although I didn’t know much about Catholicism until I actually entered the RCIA program, I knew there was no other organization that stood as firmly and as clearly in protection of life. I knew this was the place where I belonged.

Lisa

 

[john78]

or better yet how about not using the term, " pro-choice catholics "/ and just refer to those individuals as just pro-choice.

if one is of the opinion that pro-choice is indeed a human choice and not a matter based on the Catholic/ Christian faith, and is apart of the Catholic/ Christian faith, and that person has not physically supported or financially supported the pro-choice movement, then perhaps that individual is indeed misguided and needs to be further educated in the faith, versus a person who claims to be catholic, is well educated in the faith, and yet chooses to physically and financially support not only the pro-choice movement, but has assisted a woman in making that decision, then perhaps that individual can not honestly be considered to be catholic or even christian.

once baptised one is always catholic or christian, but at some point one has to ask does that person really believe not only the teachings of the church, but Christ/ God Himself. One can not be moving so far away from God in such a blatant and obvious manner an yet claim to truly believe in Christ / God.

 

[Brandall]

or better yet how about not using the term, " pro-choice catholics "/ and just refer to those individuals as just pro-choice.

if one is of the opinion that pro-choice is indeed a human choice and not a matter based on the Catholic/ Christian faith, and is apart of the Catholic/ Christian faith, and that person has not physically supported or financially supported the pro-choice movement, then perhaps that individual is indeed misguided and needs to be further educated in the faith, versus a person who claims to be catholic, is well educated in the faith, and yet chooses to physically and financially support not only the pro-choice movement, but has assisted a woman in making that decision, then perhaps that individual can not honestly be considered to be catholic or even christian.

once baptised one is always catholic or christian, but at some point one has to ask does that person really believe not only the teachings of the church, but Christ/ God Himself. One can not be moving so far away from God in such a blatant and obvious manner an yet claim to truly believe in Christ / God.

In all honesty, I know several otherwise very good people that have been duped by the PR of the pro abortionists. I sincerely am dumbfounded how anyone can fall for what they are selling but it happens and it happens a lot.

Having said that, it is more than alarming when it happens to those that due to their religious or moral affiliations should not even have the capacity to entertain supporting such.

I was raised a Baptist and the Baptists, like the Catholic Church, are firmly anti abortion. Recently, a former pastor of mine posted something anti abortion on facebook. One of my old friends from this church, went into a tirade against the post, in support of abortion. This woman, that I’ve known for 40 years came from a good Christian home, supported the church and the pastor of mine was also hers. In the first place, if her opinion was different from her former pastor, she should have kept her thoughts to herself. It was beyond rude to behave that way to a man of god. In the second, I’m at a loss to explain how someone that I’ve loved and respected all my life has come to such horrible conclusions regarding the unborn.

My point here is we are still losing the battle and we’re losing the battle even in our strongholds. There should not be pro abortion Baptists or pro abortion Catholics or even pro abortions Christians. To not correctly name the problem we are not addressing the problem.

 

[snarflemike]

Couldn’t there be SOME pro-choice Catholics who believe that other women and their families might be guided by THEIR OWN religious and moral teachings which may differ from those of Catholicism. IOW, these Catholics might never have an abortion themselves but they still respect the right of others to choose to have one if that choice is governed by religious principles. Is this situation impossible?

Kind of like owning a slave?

I’m not trying to zing you, because I appreciate your posts, but It is reasonable to ask where else this “respect the right of others to choose” can be invoked.

 

[meltzerboy]

Kind of like owning a slave?

I’m not trying to zing you, because I appreciate your posts, but It is reasonable to ask where else this “respect the right of others to choose” can be invoked.

To give one example, I think most Quakers respect the right of non-Quakers to choose to defend their own lives by inflicting bodily harm and even death on others. This kind of behavior is against the Quaker religion but it does not AFAIK impose its moral values on others.

 

[snarflemike]

To give one example, I think most Quakers respect the right of non-Quakers to choose to defend their own lives by inflicting bodily harm and even death on others. This kind of behavior is against the Quaker religion but it does not AFAIK impose its moral values on others.

But wouldn’t you agree that there are moral issues where Quakers would not respect somebody’s “right”? That is, there are some moral issues where Quakers do indeed seek to impose their moral values on others.

 

[St_Francis]

To give one example, I think most Quakers respect the right of non-Quakers to choose to defend their own lives by inflicting bodily harm and even death on others. This kind of behavior is against the Quaker religion but it does not AFAIK impose its moral values on others.

But Quakers did a lot of work in the anti-slavery movement, didn’t they?

 

[LisaA]

But Quakers did a lot of work in the anti-slavery movement, didn’t they?

Absolutely. They founded one of the first anti slavery movements in this country. George Fox preached against slavery in the 17th century.

There is a Quaker who posts on CAF. She claims they are not anti-abortion which seems incongruous with their peaceful approach and refusal to engage in war. One of their tenants is that all human beings are created equal…I guess you have to be born to be human? Anyway no expert on Quakers but I have always felt the slavery analogy works well, particularly with respect to those who claim to be personally against abortion but wouldn’t force their views upon others. That argument is more full of holes than Swiss cheese but people still try to use it.

I’ve never seen abortion or slavery as religious issues. They are to me human rights issues and to hold that all humans have certain basic rights by virtue of their being human, those rights must also be extended to humans who have limitations whether by age, handicap, or health. Religious issues are more on the line of what day you attend a service or the order of the service or what books are sacred. In other words, I don’t have the right to force my religious practices and specifics on others…you don’t have to go to Mass or believe in the Real Presence. Human rights transcend religious practice even though some religions are notable for their strong protection of these rights.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

But wouldn’t you agree that there are moral issues where Quakers would not respect somebody’s “right”? That is, there are some moral issues where Quakers do indeed seek to impose their moral values on others.

I would not agree since I know of no such moral issues, which, to me, mean issues that people of different faiths may legitimately and in good conscience disagree on, that Quakers believe others who are non-Quakers should be bound to follow.

 

[meltzerboy]

But Quakers did a lot of work in the anti-slavery movement, didn’t they?

Which religion of modern times believes that slavery is morally justifiable? Note this is not the same as TWISTING religion to justify slavery, as was done in the United States, for example, when biblical passages from the Hebrew Bible were taken out of (cultural) context by certain Protestant denominations to justify slavery.

Judaism does not distort biblical passages by disregarding the context in the Torah or Talmud to justify abortion; to the contrary, it carefully interprets passages and weighs the context. There is a significant difference. And, as I pointed out, Judaism does NOT take abortion lightly and is opposed to abortion on demand. Still, it does allow for abortion under very specific circumstances involving the life and death of the mother, as well as her psychological health due to rape and incest. And even the latter is not universally accepted by all rabbis, but the former is required to save the mother’s life, rare as this situation may be.

 

[meltzerboy]

Absolutely. They founded one of the first anti slavery movements in this country. George Fox preached against slavery in the 17th century.

There is a Quaker who posts on CAF. She claims they are not anti-abortion which seems incongruous with their peaceful approach and refusal to engage in war. One of their tenants is that all human beings are created equal…I guess you have to be born to be human? Anyway no expert on Quakers but I have always felt the slavery analogy works well, particularly with respect to those who claim to be personally against abortion but wouldn’t force their views upon others. That argument is more full of holes than Swiss cheese but people still try to use it.

I’ve never seen abortion or slavery as religious issues. They are to me human rights issues and to hold that all humans have certain basic rights by virtue of their being human, those rights must also be extended to humans who have limitations whether by age, handicap, or health. Religious issues are more on the line of what day you attend a service or the order of the service or what books are sacred. In other words, I don’t have the right to force my religious practices and specifics on others…you don’t have to go to Mass or believe in the Real Presence. Human rights transcend religious practice even though some religions are notable for their strong protection of these rights.

Lisa

Lisa, I think the slavery comparison is a strawperson. Which RELIGION, not adherents who distorted the meaning of the religion, believed in slavery at the time? Christianity or Judaism?

 

[Elizabeth502]

meltzerboy,
You’re cute with your “strawperson.”

I understand what you’re saying about religious liberty. Catholics, being citizens and residents of this country, too, are also bound by requirements to respect the religious allowances of other religions.

One is a moral position. The other is a legal position. Catholics, including the hierarchy, including Catholic personnel at hospitals or in solo practices, are not in a position, legally or practically, to restrict any woman, Catholic or not, from procuring an abortion. Nor do I think that is an argument that I have ever heard. Legal access to abortion is protected for all, regardless of religious conviction, to the degree and within the circumstances it is currently legal. (Only some states have enacted some restrictions.)

And while some Catholics have suggested that abortionists and/or those who obtain abortions be criminalized, i.m.o., that is not the way to go. I prefer much different methods to discourage abortion and reduce its incidence. Nevertheless, opinions differ within the Church as to the best approach; some are more radical, some less so. No doubt you’ve seen that on this forum! The official Catholic position is that individuals and the institution have a right and responsibility to influence policy and law in the direction of a morality which the Church holds to be universal, not just institutional. Yet that does not mean that there is not an understanding of different moral positions of people from different faiths.

As you know, some religions do have more uniform moral codes, some are more individualistic in their approach to morality. On certain issues (abortion being one) an individual morality is incompatible with Roman Catholicism, despite what anyone says about secular expectations. Catholics are bound by the moral code of the Church when they’re in church and when they’re in the world. That requirement does not mean that they’re “forcing” society to do anything; it has to do with their own behavior, which mandates that they not cave in to society’s mores when those oppose Catholicism (that they not allow society to force them to compromise their religion) . It does mean that if one is a practicing Catholic it can be necessary to restrict career choices or assignment choices if one is to remain in good standing.

Most of this ^ you probably already know. Repeating some of it for those lurking who may wonder what the boundaries are and are not.