Pro Choice Politics

[Ignatius64869]

First, I apologize. I thought you were the OP based on your last post, so I thought you were the one calling for people to be “punished.”

I, presumably like you, don’t think any of them should be punished. Joe Biden should not be punished, and neither should some low level INS employee since neither are saying anything heretical. I do not know of any Catholic politicians who say that abortion is moral. I do not know of any Catholic politicians who procure abortions. I only know of Catholic politicians who believe banning abortion is not in the best solution to the problem. That is not heretical. That is not a sin. They merely disagree with the predominate Catholic solution to the problem, as I do. Studies show that abortions decrease more substantially when the mother is supported by social programs and that banning abortions allows wealthier woman to seek them and poorer women to seek unsafe alternatives. So, let’s start by forming social programs that support women so they do not have to have abortions. I would rather live in a socialist or a democratic socialist state that has few abortions than a state that bans abortion entirely but still has a high number of them due to financial stress and lack of opportunity for young mothers (like in Argentina, for example). Instead, the statistics show that abortion rates decrease during times of economic prosperity and increase during times of economic hardship. We need to create social programs to help provide economic support and opportunities for mothers. Making public college free would certainly help as well, for then women would not have to decide to forgo their college education and potential careers or support their child. The question, then, is how much are we all willing to give up to prevent abortion? Banning it is cheap and ineffective. Social programs are expensive and more effective. Are conservatives willing to have higher taxes or substantially decreased military spending in order to prevent as many abortions as possible? Are conservatives willing to have substantially more sex education and universal healthcare (including contraceptives) in order to prevent abortions? What is a life worth? Lives of innocent children are invaluable to me.

The Church has done so for centuries, but it has not always done so. We cannot start at the middle ages and assume that it’s always been that way. It hasn’t. Early Christian communities “excommunicated,” to use a modern term, people for committing serious sins (like murder, rape, and incest), but it never excommunicated people for disagreeing unless their disagreement was heretical.

And yes, I believe everybody, including protestants and non-believers (though non-believers would be odd), should be permitted to receive the Eucharist. Considering that the idea of Papal primacy and transubstantiation would not exist for centuries, they seem like unnecessary barriers to ecumenism (similar to the fililoque). There are deeper truths than transubstantial, consubstantial, and papal primacy that unite us, and I think boxing Jesus into our limited ways of thinking is nonsense. Jesus does not need us to guard him from fellow Christians.

 

[Ignatius64869]

Then your only option is to not vote and starve. I would rather eat a plate full of tasty things with a few poisonous mushrooms than a plate full of poisonous mushrooms and a few tasty things. I think I’d get less ill that way.

 

[Ignatius64869]

Your assumption is that they are damning themselves. Considering that they are not saying anything heretical and that they are not committing any sins, I see no reason to believe they are damning themselves, and again, who am I to judge whether someone is damned? That’s not your place, my place, Cardinal Burke’s place, or Pope Francis’ place.

I highly doubt almost the entire Jesuit order, a good portion of nuns and religious sisters, and most lay Catholic theologians are going to be damned merely because they generally vote democratic and thus, according to many on here, are pro-abortion. Especially since, in reality, they are not pro-abortion at all. Instead, they believe a more pastoral approach is better than an authoritative one to the abortion problem.

 

[2towers]

yes, that or vote for a pro life candidate. I can’t vote for a pro murder cadidate. Enjoy your vegetables.

 

[Ignatius64869]

I have yet to see a consistently pro-life candidate at the national level. I have seen some who are against abortion and euthanasia but for the death penalty. I have seen some who are against abortion an euthanasia but against universal healthcare. I have seen some who are against abortion and euthanasia but against a more humanitarian approach to immigration. I have yet, aside for the American Solidarity party and other fringe parties, seen any party that maintains a consistent life ethic. Starving does not save lives; it just functionally takes your own and contributes to the list of casualties.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First, I apologize. I thought you were the OP based on your last post, so I thought you were the one calling for people to be “punished.”

No worries. I most definitely would never start a political thread like this though. They rarely go well.

I mostly like to start threads about prayer and saints and that sort of thing.

 

[Ignatius64869]

I figured as much. I am new to the forum as a participant, and I am learning that quickly!

 

[2towers]

I have seen some who are against abortion and euthanasia but for the death penalty.

My comments were directed at pro-abortion candidates. I did not mention the death penalty. The OP did not mention the DP, universal healthcare, euthanasia, just abortion.

Starving does not save lives; it just functionally takes your own and contributes to the list of casualties.

So you are ready to make that distinction before the throne of God? I don’t know about you, but I have enough on my dance card to explain without adding the matter of voting for those who legislatively enable the murder of babies.

I have yet, aside for the American Solidarity party and other fringe parties, seen any party that maintains a consistent life ethic.

Again, I am speaking of individual candidates. I am open to considering any candidate that does not support abortion. Elected officials belonging to a party can and do vote against their parties platform, though this might not be the norm. In my life I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. It is highly unlikely though I will ever vote for another Democrat presidential candidate again, given the heavy prevailing pro-baby murder stance they have taken. Abortion is the only absolute deal breaker I have.

I highly doubt almost the entire Jesuit order, a good portion of nuns and religious sisters, and most lay Catholic theologians are going to be damned merely because they generally vote democratic and thus, according to many on here, are pro-abortion. Especially since, in reality, they are not pro-abortion at all. Instead, they believe a more pastoral approach is better than an authoritative one to the abortion problem.

Boy, that is a lot of assumptions. Most of those you have listed are not in the US. I imagine they take not only a pastoral approach, but are all very well aware of the scandal that comes with supporting abortion in any capacity. A man cannot EVER qualify for the priesthood if he has participated in abortion.

 

[Ignatius64869]

My comments were directed at pro-abortion candidates

Well that simplifies things. I am not sure a pro-abortion candidate exists, so it is rather easy not to vote for them.

Usually pro-abortion is a misnomer for pro-choice and an antonym of pro-life. Pro-life includes more than anti-abortion. The topics I included fall under the category of pro-life since they are matters of life and death.

So you are ready to make that distinction before the throne of God? I don’t know about you, but I have enough on my dance card to explain without adding the matter of voting for those who legislatively enable the murder of babies.

I don’t think I will need to make a distinction before God. God is rather intelligent, so I presume God already understands the distinction far better than either of us.

It is highly unlikely though I will ever vote for another Democrat presidential candidate again, given the heavy prevailing pro-baby murder stance they have taken. Abortion is the only absolute deal breaker I have.

If abortion is the only deal breaker you have, you might want to reconsider the whole of Catholic social teaching. There is much more there than abortion.

Boy, that is a lot of assumptions. Most of those you have listed are not in the US. I imagine they take not only a pastoral approach, but are all very well aware of the scandal that comes with supporting abortion in any capacity. A man cannot EVER qualify for the priesthood if he has participated in abortion.

Our definitions of “participate” are clearly different. And It is an assumption supported by extensive experience being taught by and dealing with those groups of people. I have yet to meet a Jesuit who is a Republican, and I’ve met a ton. Throughout my multiple graduate degrees in theology, I have not met a Republican professor. Throughout my experience with sisters from abroad and in the United States, I have met many who consider the Republican platform reprehensible and the Democratic platform more beneficial to the poor and disenfranchised. Are there Republican Jesuits? Of course. Do they make up the majority of the order? I really, really doubt it. Are there Republican lay theologians out there? Sure, just watch EWTN. Are they the majority? Not in my experience. Visit Georgetown, BC, Notre Dame, SLU, Creighton, Santa Clara, etc., and the majority of the theologians are liberal. Also, if they are not in the United States, they are generally more liberal/progressive. Most religious I’ve encountered from other countries consider the American mentality toward the poor to be archaic and bizarre.

Regardless, that’s not the point. The point is that your narrow view of this topic and your assumption that voting or being against banning abortion will always result in damnation is erroneous and, taken to its natural conclusion, would result in the damnation of many of the greatest models of Christ alive today. I am not asking for you to agree. I am asking for open-mindedness and for you to consider the possibility that both standpoints are equally valid in our mutual effort to build the Kingdom of God.

 

[2towers]

If abortion is the only deal breaker you have, you might want to reconsider the whole of Catholic social teaching. There is much more there than abortion.

Im sorry if you took that as an endorsement on SSM and the DP, I am not in favor of either of those things, but while they would count against my voting for them, they are not the solid deal breakers that abortion is.

Most religious I’ve encountered from other countries consider the American mentality toward the poor to be archaic and bizarre.

I quite agree.

The point is that your narrow view of this topic and your assumption that voting or being against banning abortion will always result in damnation is erroneous and, taken to its natural conclusion, would result in the damnation of many of the greatest models of Christ alive today.

I think that is actually pretty rude. My attitude is far from being narrow minded, in fact, if anything, it is most likely too liberal.

While I said one might have to answer for the error of supporting abortion, by voting for a pro abortion candidate, that doesn’t mean damnation, those are your words.

Your welcome to rebut further, but I think our discussion has reached it’s productive end.

 

[Ignatius64869]

Im sorry if you took that as an endorsement on SSM and the DP

No worries. I didn’t. There are more than than those three issues too, but that’s beside the point.

I find no problem with abortion being your litmus test. I find no problem with you having your viewpoint. I disagree with your perspective, and I think that is okay. Both of us are acting in good faith. Both of us are trying to build the kingdom of God the best we can. That’s my only argument. I merely disagree with the assumption that pro-choice candidates, parties, or voters are pro-abortion. As I have said, I do not know a single person who is for women having abortions. Instead, they are against banning abortion for a variety of reasons. Many pro-choice Catholics believe the democratic platform is a better vehicle for social reform and that social reform will more effectively reduce abortions. That includes Catholic politicians.

I think that is actually pretty rude. My attitude is far from being narrow minded

My apologies. I did not mean that in an uncharitable way at all; I did not mean that you are narrow minded. I merely meant that you seem to have a narrow viewpoint (as opposed to a broad one) on this issue since you seem to believe that those who are against banning abortion are pro-abortion (i.e. contra-life). In other words, you seem to believe there is only one moral stance on the issue of abortion, which seems narrow from my perspective since it really only allows one possibility as opposed to many possibilities. I sincerely did not mean to imply that you are narrow minded.

While I said one might have to answer for the error of supporting abortion, by voting for a pro abortion candidate, that doesn’t mean damnation, those are your words.

The fundamental disagreement between us is that there are candidates who are pro-abortion and that supporting a candidate who will bring meaningful social reform is an error simply because that candidate, along with all other candidates, will not be able to bring meaningful change to the issue of abortion and chooses instead to keep the law unchanged.

Your welcome to rebut further, but I think our discussion has reached it’s productive end

This might be the case. My point is merely that those who are pro-choice or those who do not believe banning abortions is the best solution are pro-abortion or contra-life. Since they are neither pro-abortion nor contra-life, and since they are working to reduce abortions through social reform, they are not working against Catholic doctrine or Catholic social teaching. As such, their perspective ought to be respected, just as the position that abortion ought to be banned ought to be respected.

Again, I sincerely apologize if I offended you! That was not my intent. I would never intentionally insult anyone.

 

[mythbuster1]

Willful blindness is no excuse. If they are confused, the clergy have a duty to enlighten them. If they refuse to be enlightened, they stand guilty of heresy.

 

[TheLittleLady]

You are re-posting a LifeSite blog post from 2013.