Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[mlchance]

Come on Mark you can do better than that.

So can you.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sonny1954]

Yeah, truely… There is no way to reconcile a pro-choice (abortion) position with Catholic Teachings… Anyone attempting to do so is just kidding them selves.

For we Catholics who are pro-choice, this forum is something of a “stacked deck.” I have posted several times trying to explain my own position, which is that abortion is a moral evil from which people should be discouraged (just as there are other moral evils from which people should be discouraged but remain acceptable–in some instances even to the Church hierarchy.) Nearly every pro-choice person I know, Catholic or otherwise, is not pro-abortion, a distinction which is frequently denied or even ridiculed on this forum.

Does the catechism truly state that a citizen who supports a politician who is pro-choice but, more importantly, advocates for other issues important to that citizen, is automatically excommunicated? Does the catechism expressly command a Catholic public servant to fight for legislation supported by the Catholic Bishops even if the preponderance of her/his constituents feel differently? Or are these examples of how the UCCB interprets the catechism?

Okay, I’ve stuck my head in the noose. Now blast away and tell me that I’m “not really a Catholic” and I’m going to hell and all of the other expressions of Christian love which I’ve come to expect. I just ask one thing…don’t bring my mother into it?

 

[Christopher68]

No elected officials can outlaw abortion. The Supreme Court has settled the issue. Outside of a Constitutional Amendment (very unlikely) outlawing abortion is a non-issue.

You have correctly stated the reality of the issue from a governmental standpoint. The Constitutional Amendment is not just very unlikely - it is a mathematical impossibility based on the simple number of ‘pro choice’ states. And even a conservative-leaning Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn a nearly four decade old law. So considering the fact that politicians really don’t control the governmental outcome of this particular issue - and also considering the fact that government is a highly inefficient bureaucratic mess of an organization - why are there so many single issue voters out there?

 

[mlchance]

For we Catholics who are pro-choice, this forum is something of a “stacked deck.”

So is Catholic teaching. One cannot be Catholic and approve of abortion being legal. The Church is quite clear on this point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BillP]

So is Catholic teaching. One cannot be Catholic and approve of abortion being legal. The Church is quite clear on this point.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark, you are begging the question of whether or not a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice politician. We’ve gone around and around on this before but as far back as 2003 then Cardinal Ratzinger said:

In a 2003 letter to the US Bishops’ Conference, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a bracketed afterthought: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06110607.html

Now, we can argue endlessly on what constitutes “proportionate reasons”, but the point is that they exist, and its up to each Catholic to determine what they are for his or her individual vote. You simply can’t assert that a vote for a pro-choice politician is ipso facto definitive of mortal sin. well, you can assert it, but you would be incorrect.

 

[BillP]

Does the catechism truly state that a citizen who supports a politician who is pro-choice but, more importantly, advocates for other issues important to that citizen, is automatically excommunicated? Does the catechism expressly command a Catholic public servant to fight for legislation supported by the Catholic Bishops even if the preponderance of her/his constituents feel differently? Or are these examples of how the UCCB interprets the catechism?

Despite what the really hard-core “pro-life” factions want you to believe, the Church does’t teach that, nor is it how the USCCB interprets Church teaching. People who assert otherwise are, at best, misinformed.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
   important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
   relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
   a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
   intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
   cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
   opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
   important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
   conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
   extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
   may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such
   a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

You really should read the entire document, it is an excellent guide.

 

[mlchance]

Mark, you are begging the question of whether or not a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice politician. … You simply can’t assert that a vote for a pro-choice politician is ipso facto definitive of mortal sin.

I begged nothing because I wasn’t addressing the issue of voting for a pro-choice politician, nor have I asserted that doing so is a mortal sin, ipso facto or otherwise.

This isn’t complicated. One cannot be a pro-choice Catholic and be in conformance with clear, mandatory Church teaching, since the Church clearly teaches that abortion – legal or not – is not acceptable. From the CCC (emphases added):

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

Every Catholic is morally obligated to work to bring an end to laws that permit abortion. Now, to me, it seems this obligation cannot be met by voting for pro-choice politicians, but this is not a hard, fast rule. An incremental strategy is acceptable. Thus, given a choice between two pro-choice candidates, for example, it could be acceptable to vote for the one that truly supports limiting abortion rather than the one who suppport abortion-on-demand.

When evil cannot be eliminated, it must be limited. If the best the pro-life movement can accomplish to make illegal some abortions, then that is better than nothing. Of course, this is also no excuse to not work toward a total ban.

Regardless, the original point stands: One cannot be a pro-choice Catholic and be in conformance with clear, mandatory Church teaching. Indeed, all Catholics must work to eliminate abortion – legal or otherwise – from society.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BenjaminLumen]

There is no reconciliation possible. Public support of Abortion is public support of murder.
So you are publically supporting the Sin of Murder, not to mention that it is diametrically opposed by the teaching of the Church,It is therefore a heresy on top of that…

There is no reconciliation…

Public support by politicians, is grounds for excommunication.

Its that simple…

 

[estesbob]

Mark, you are begging the question of whether or not a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice politician. We’ve gone around and around on this before but as far back as 2003 then Cardinal Ratzinger said:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06110607.html

Now, we can argue endlessly on what constitutes “proportionate reasons”, but the point is that they exist, and its up to each Catholic to determine what they are for his or her individual vote. You simply can’t assert that a vote for a pro-choice politician is ipso facto definitive of mortal sin. well, you can assert it, but you would be incorrect.

Not a single member of the Magestrium stated there were proportinate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote Barrack Obama. not one. But over 62 emphatically stated there were not. Look here , for example"
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091604.html

What we have seen is Democrat apologists seize on a one line footnote in a Ratzinger letter and try and spin it to overturn the voluminous teachings of the Church that voting for a canidate who suports abortion on demand is wrong. They ignore the body of the letter where Cardinal Ratzinger makes it clear that the usual Liberal excuses for proportionality, war and capital punishment, do not rise to the level of abortion.

Perhaps Archbishop Chaput put it best:

To suggest – as some Catholics do – that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “prolife” option is to subvert what the word “prolife” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” and his follow-up article, “Obama and Infanticide.” They say everything that needs to be said.

“What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue?,”“It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

 

[Worthy5]

So can you.

– Mark L. Chance.

And this poster has my friend.

 

[Christopher68]

The late libertarian leader Harry Browne was often quoted as saying “Given the results of the government’s war on poverty and war on drugs, we can only assume that a war on abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.”

Browne used humor to make the obvious point that government is vastly inefficient and often makes problems worse as opposed to better.

Why are some of you on the forum constantly looking to the government for the solution?

 

[gakroeger]

Not a single member of the Magestrium stated there were proportinate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote Barrack Obama. not one. But over 62 emphatically stated there were not. Look here , for example"
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091604.html

What we have seen is Democrat apologists seize on a one line footnote in a Ratzinger letter and try and spin it to overturn the voluminous teachings of the Church that voting for a canidate who suports abortion on demand is wrong. They ignore the body of the letter where Cardinal Ratzinger makes it clear that the usual Liberal excuses for proportionality, war and capital punishment, do not rise to the level of abortion.

Perhaps Archbishop Chaput put it best:

To suggest – as some Catholics do – that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “prolife” option is to subvert what the word “prolife” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” and his follow-up article, “Obama and Infanticide.” They say everything that needs to be said.

“What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue?,”“It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

I am happy to see that a couple of “pro choice” Catholics have shown up with the courage to speak up. Let the debate continue.

Also, this is slightly off subject however, I think at this point in the debate we need to take a look at what a non Catholic has to say about our society and the Catholic Church. Maybe we can all agree on this and understand a little better some of the under lying problems with the Catholic lead on the abortion issue. Please read the article at the link below. This is a little dated, but still very applicable.

Click here

 

[estesbob]

The late libertarian leader Harry Browne was often quoted as saying “Given the results of the government’s war on poverty and war on drugs, we can only assume that a war on abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.”

Browne used humor to make the obvious point that government is vastly inefficient and often makes problems worse as opposed to better.

Why are some of you on the forum constantly looking to the government for the solution?

What does this have to do with the morality of supporting pro-abortion canidates?

 

[Christopher68]

What does this have to do with the morality of supporting pro-abortion canidates?

By supporting candidates who advocate an activist, big-government approach to combating abortion, you are supporting a position that will likely INCREASE the rate of abortion. If that wasn’t true, then the governments war on drugs would have eliminated drug use, but in fact it is worse than ever. Government doesn’t solve problems - government makes problems worse. Why do you want to make abortion a bigger problem?

 

[mlchance]

By supporting candidates who advocate an activist, big-government approach to combating abortion, you are supporting a position that will likely INCREASE the rate of abortion.

There is no evidence to support either that those who want abortion illegal support “an activist, big-government approach” nor that the illegalization position will increase the number of abortions, especially since it is undeniable that the number of abortions performed increased after legalization.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that one cannot be a pro-choice Catholic and be in conformance with clear, mandatory Church teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Christopher68]

There is no evidence to support either that those who want abortion illegal support “an activist, big-government approach” nor that the illegalization position will increase the number of abortions, especially since it is undeniable that the number of abortions performed increased after legalization.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that one cannot be a pro-choice Catholic and be in conformance with clear, mandatory Church teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.

So by your logic, the war on drugs is working?

Why do you have such a strong faith in government?

 

[mlchance]

So by your logic, the war on drugs is working?

Why do you have such a strong faith in government?

Scroll up to find my strawman picture. I said nothing about the war on drugs. That’s your distraction, not my assertion. I also never said I had any level of faith in the government, weak, medium, or strong. Again, that’s your distraction.

The fact remains: One cannot be a pro-choice Catholic and be in conformance with clear, mandatory Church teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BillP]

Not a single member of the Magestrium stated there were proportinate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote Barrack Obama. not one. But over 62 emphatically stated there were not. Look here , for example"
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091604.html

You link showed the opinions of two (count 'em 2!) members of the Magesterium. Where are the other 60?

What we have seen is Democrat apologists seize on a one line footnote in a Ratzinger letter and try and spin it to overturn the voluminous teachings of the Church that voting for a canidate who suports abortion on demand is wrong.

That is, at best a misrepresentation. The idea of proportionality runs throughout Catholic teaching and is explicitly articulated, for exactly this purpose in Faithful Citizenship.

Both Bishops Nauman & Finn and Archbishop Chaput are all entitled to their opinion about what constitutes a proportionate reason for voting for a pro-life politician. But it is only their opinion.

The Holy Father is entitled to make an ex cathedra pronouncment on the issue, which, note you well, he has not chosen to do.

If you want to debate whether or not this or that politician’s positions represent a proportionate reason to vote for hiim or her, that is perfectly fine with me. But such a debate has to start from an admission that there is conceiveably some position that would be proprotionate.

The bigger question is why you feel obligated to misrepresent Church teaching, and mischaracterize the statements of the Magesterium to try to stifle debate on this issue?

 

[estesbob]

By supporting candidates who advocate an activist, big-government approach to combating abortion, you are supporting a position that will likely INCREASE the rate of abortion. If that wasn’t true, then the governments war on drugs would have eliminated drug use, but in fact it is worse than ever. Government doesn’t solve problems - government makes problems worse. Why do you want to make abortion a bigger problem?

Does making murder illegal cut down on the number of muders? How about rape?

I see no big govt intrusion in prohibiting the killing of chidren. What i see is basic hyamn rights

What you our doing advancing the old hearts and minds argument. The same argument was used to justfiy the continuation of slavery in the coutnry for its first 90 years of its existence.

There is , BTW, no evidence that outlawing abortion increases it. We know that prior to roe v wade being imposed on the country the number of annual abortions was in the 400,000 a year range -within two years of Roes imposition it had incrased to 1.5 million a year.

Even if you premises were correct ti would not make it moral to vote for one who supports abortion on demand. I have alwayy wondered why any one with any degree of morality would need the Church to tell them you shouldnt vote for those who support abortion on demand.

 

[mlchance]

The bigger question is why you feel obligated to misrepresent Church teaching, and mischaracterize the statements of the Magesterium to try to stifle debate on this issue?

Perhaps for the same reason you do by dismissing official statement by bishops (including popes) as just “opinion” while at the same time ignoring the Church’s clear teaching about the acceptability of legalized abortion?

– Mark L. Chance.