Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Sonny1954]

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.

I know you won’t accept it–and your acceptance is beside the point anyway–but some of us our living proof that one can be a Catholic and pro-choice. You can quote the “rules & regs.” til you’re blue in the face. I have always lived and will always live a practicing Catholic who supports the Church with my time, treasure and talent, as they say. That choice is mine and none other’s.

 

[edwest2]

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?

Well, you’ve asked important questions. Is the baby in the womb a human being? Yes or no? What is the choice being advocated? Killing a baby in the womb?

You are looking through the various rules and asking, is this set in stone? I invite you to read this:

dakotavoice.com/2009/11/planned-parenthood-director-turns-pro-life/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Christopher68]

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.

I know ‘you’ didn’t say anything about the war on drugs - ‘I’ used that analogy to demonstrate the failure of government, and to question why you placed your faith in government when it has such a poor track record. And you may assert that you never said that you had any level of faith in government. But if that it true, why are you relying on government to resolve this issue?

 

[estesbob]

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

Which is two More than you have shown stateing there were proportionate reasns to vote for Obama

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?

I ask you again to show us where ANY member of the magestrium who has suggested there are proportionate reasons to vote for an canidate who supports abortion on demand While you deride the Bishops quoted and the Pope as merely expressing their “opinion” all you have countered with your personal opinion-an opinion you can find no support for from any leaders of the church.

The bigger question is why you feel your politcal views should take precedence over the teachings of the Church?

 

[mlchance]

I know you won’t accept it–and your acceptance is beside the point anyway–but some of us our living proof that one can be a Catholic and pro-choice.

I never said you couldn’t be both Catholic and pro-choice. I said you cannot be both and claim to be in conformance with clear, mandatory Church teaching. You can also be Catholic and a sex offender, Catholic and an adulterer, Catholic and tax cheat, et cetera. I’m quite sure somewhere there’s a Catholic and a [fill-in-the-blank] of every type, and probably many sit around saying:

You can quote the “rules & regs.” til you’re blue in the face. … That choice is mine and none other’s.

Of course the choice is yours. Church teaching is also clear that your choice is wrong. You can accept that or not, as you will.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Christopher68]

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.

Murder and rape are universally recognized as being wrong. Despite what you or I may believe, abortion is not universally recognized as wrong. It is virtually impossible to enforce laws against behaviors that are not universally accepted as being wrong. That’s the difference.

 

[mlchance]

And you may assert that you never said that you had any level of faith in government. But if that it true, why are you relying on government to resolve this issue?

Please quote me saying that I’m “relying on government to resolve this issue”. Once you fail to do that, feel free to apologize for mischaracterizing my position in order to score a cheap point or two.

Murder and rape are universally recognized as being wrong.

The existence of any number of unrepetant murders and rapists demonstrates the falseness of this claim.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[edwest2]

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?

Wait a minute, please. Who is going to stop the importation of illegal drugs into this country? And what about legalizing some of them? Oh yeah. Emergency rooms will be filled with the drunk and high, and dead.

The War on Poverty was a Johnson Administration plan that could not be funded properly because of the Vietnam War and, by the way, a disproportionate number of blacks were drafted.

Finally, the Supreme Court is not using logic when defending so-called abortion rights. It stated that people get to do what they want and make up their own rules instead of arguing for the fact that all of them began life as human embryos. They also did not overturn Roe because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Court. This, according to Father Ricardo on Catholic Radio, was the most asinine statement ever made.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Christopher68]

Please quote me saying that I’m “relying on government to resolve this issue”. Once you fail to do that, feel free to apologize for mischaracterizing my position in order to score a cheap point or two.

Okay, on post # 212, you are wrote:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.”

In addition, you stated:

“Every Catholic is morally obligated to work to bring an end to **laws **that permit abortion.”

It certainly appears you are relying on government to resolve this issue. If not, then what exactly are you saying?

 

[Christopher68]

Wait a minute, please. Who is going to stop the importation of illegal drugs into this country? And what about legalizing some of them? Oh yeah. Emergency rooms will be filled with the drunk and high, and dead.

The War on Poverty was a Johnson Administration plan that could not be funded properly because of the Vietnam War and, by the way, a disproportionate number of blacks were drafted.

Finally, the Supreme Court is not using logic when defending so-called abortion rights. It stated that people get to do what they want and make up their own rules instead of arguing for the fact that all of them began life as human embryos. They also did not overturn Roe because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Court. This, according to Father Ricardo on Catholic Radio, was the most asinine statement ever made.

Peace,
Ed

Drugs flow illegally because there is a black market for them. Decriminalize them and you eliminate the black market and the illegal flow.

I’ve heard the argument that legalizing drugs would encourage people to use drugs. I really have to question that assertion. I would not take drugs even if they were legal, nor do I know anyone who would.

Regarding your comments on LBJ’s Great Society program, are you saying if we threw enough money at the problem that the Great Society program would have succeeded? Over the past two years the federal government has spent an absolutely massive amount of money, and yet what has the government really accomplished as of late?

Note to OP: sorry for venturing off topic.

 

[Worthy5]

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

 

[gakroeger]

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.

The problem with this position used by many “pro choice” Catholics is that you obviously do not understand the serious nature of abortion or the Church’s position on it. Would you say that you personally would not kill a two year old toddler in cold blood but would not deny someone else the right to kill that toddler in cold blood? Both science and the Catholic Church state emphatically that a human is a human from conception until death. There is no difference except stage of development between these two humans. Anyone who supports “pro choice” is basically saying that inconvenience to the Mother, Father, or other person outweighs the unborn humans right to live. There are 600,000 couples in the United States desperately wanting to adopt babies, and because Planned Parenthood makes a business of killing the unborn this take preference, and “pro choice” Catholics are helping this condition to continue.

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?

Read what the catechism says…

I recently started a thread under the social justice category attempting to get “pro choice” Catholics to look at Church teaching as it relates to abortion. That thread ran over 10,000 views and 1000 posts but never tackled the issue I hoped it would. Very few “pro choice” Catholics entered the fray and those that did would not face this issue directly and diverted the debate toward biology and legalities. I would now like to address the subject more directly under this new category. Please, let us discuss only Church teaching and not the legal and biological arguments. The only biological argument that is acceptable is if you claim to have proof that the embryo is not human at any point in its development. If you agree that the embryo is human at all points from conception through birth and until natural death please stick to Church teaching and do not muddy the water with biological arguments. Since laws can and are in some circumstances immoral, please do not bring legal issues into this discussion.

I am hoping that a few “pro choice” Catholics will face these questions head on and help me to understand how they can claim to be both “pro choice” and Catholic at the same time.

For the most part, the arguments I have heard are that these “pro choice” Catholics weight other social issues equal to or above abortion even though the Vatican has clearly stated that abortion outweighs all other social issues combined. I would welcome lengthy debate on this issue.

I would like to start with these sections of the Catechism

Catechism 2270

Catechism 2271

Catechism 2272

Catechism 2273

Catechism 2274

Catechism 2275

Catechism 2319

Catechism 2322

Catechism 2323

Any takers out there?

 

[Worthy5]

The existence of any number of unrepetant murders and rapists demonstrates the falseness of this claim.

Really, well we have no actual data, but this poster has seen murders and rapists not repent, but they also did acknowledge that what they did was wrong—they just would not take it back or still glad they did it. Come on Mark you can do better.

 

[BillP]

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.

Mark I am surprised that you choose to misrepresent what I say to form a straw man argument, so soon after posting that amusing picture!

But no matter, I did not “dismiss” the official statement of the bishops, I simply noted that it was their opinion, that they were not entitled to make infallible pronouncements.

Nor was I ignoring the Pope’s statement. I was noting that Benedict had the option to provide a definitive, binding, infallible pronouncement on this issue and has, thus far, chosen not to do so. I also assert that the fact that he hasn’t should be food for thought, for those of you who believe that he should.

 

[Sonny1954]

I never said you couldn’t be both Catholic and pro-choice.

Originally Posted by mlchance:
One cannot be Catholic and approve of abortion being legal. The Church is quite clear on this point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BillP]

I ask you again to show us where ANY member of the magestrium who has suggested there are proportionate reasons to vote for an canidate who supports abortion on demand While you deride the Bishops quoted and the Pope as merely expressing their “opinion” all you have countered with your personal opinion-an opinion you can find no support for from any leaders of the church.

That is a whole different debate. In order to have that debate, we first have to establish a ground rule that there is some conceivable proportionate reason, or we’re simply wasting our time.

The bigger question is why you feel your politcal views should take precedence over the teachings of the Church?

You don’t have a clue what my political views are. You simply assume that you know them because I take the USCCB at face value instead of pretending that it says what you want ti to say.

You are mis-representing the teaching of the Church by pretending that they say things they don’t because YOU disagree with them. Why would you do that?

 

[Sonny1954]

“…I am hoping that a few “pro choice” Catholics will face these questions head on and help me to understand how they can claim to be both “pro choice” and Catholic at the same time…”

Well, I did my bit…

 

[estesbob]

I know you won’t accept it–and your acceptance is beside the point anyway–but some of us our living proof that one can be a Catholic and pro-choice. You can quote the “rules & regs.” til you’re blue in the face. I have always lived and will always live a practicing Catholic who supports the Church with my time, treasure and talent, as they say. That choice is mine and none other’s.

Actually you support the Church as long as it does not conflict with you politcal views. Having failed to post one ioata of evidence to support your view you now resort to" I am going to do what i want and claim I am not in conflcit with the Church regardless of what anyone alse(including bishops and the Pope) says". Its called relatavism and once you aplly it to one thing it becomes a convenient way to ignore any other teachings of the Church you are not comfortable with.

 

[gakroeger]

Question for “pro choice” Catholics…

Who’s choice are you for? The man’s, the baby’s, the relative’s, the women’s?

Listen to what “Silent No More” Women who have had abortions say

 

[beafedor]

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?

Sonny, thank you so much for posting this. I used to be an atheist and a pro-abortion person just like you describe (some people in the US call it being pro-choice): abortion was wrong but acceptable, a necessary evil. I have a personal experience of abortion. Today I’m Catholic and an anti-abortion activist. I can explain you why later but first,

I would like to know: why is abortion morally wrong and why is it acceptable in your eyes? In which situations, stages of pregnancy, which abortion procedures… are acceptable and non acceptable. Please explain as I don’t think that we can discuss abortion by just throwing political statements versus church teachings to each other’s face. Also, are you male or female? Thank you.