Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[gakroeger]

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.

This is truly a cop out. You must know that there are varible conditions that prevent the Pope (or anyone else) from making an all inclusive statement about anything where individual consciences are involved. One must know he/she is commiting sin in order for it to be a sin, however, one is also responsible for forming a “correct” conscience. If one openly and honestly studies Church teaching and forms a “correct” conscience, there is no way to remain “pro choice” as a Catholic and not sin. Of course, this is how my individual conscience was formed and you can (and probably will) dismiss it.

 

[gakroeger]

More data to help understand and decide your position.

 

[estesbob]

]

Okay so the fact that the Republican party had the White House for 8 years and the old saying is so true----that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

According to the Bishops ( who have no rubric of authority in civil matters BTW), a concerned catholic citizen of the U.S. of America ( a govt created by a free self-determining people) cannot decide that a party change is needed at the national administrative level because 1) other important policies can be promoted that have been neglected by the prior administration and 2) the need for change to root out govt corruption and Cronyism that occurs when any one party stays in power too long, without falling out of favor with the Church. Interesting

We have a two party system to effectively change power in a democracy (as oppose to multi-party chaos) but because one party has a pro-choice platform—which at its basic level is just accepting what the Court decided in Roe) the approximately 65 million Catholics cannot, as U.S citizens, participate in the two party system but rather must vote and promote a one party nation-----endlessly voting for Republican administrations regardless of any level of corruption or other policies matters being neglected. (third parties are never successful).

Makes sense.

 

[Caramel]

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.

Wrong!! It’s not a matter of the Pope "providing a definitive, binding, infallible pronoucement. The Pope is not infallible every time he makes a statement. His statements are infallible only when they are ex cathedra statements and that is a very very rare occurrence. The Pope can say whatever he want to say and I’m sure he is a sinner as we all are. The following explains what an ex cathedra declaration is:

"Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But** its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”** (emphasis added)

newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.html

 

[Christopher68]

Here’s a further explanation of why I believe government is ineffective in dealing with this topic, as explained by someone far more eloquent than I could hope to be. Once you open the link, you can scroll down about half way to get to the specific discussion on abortion.

harrybrowne.org/GLO/Morality.htm

 

[edwest2]

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.

Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever. It is in the national security interests of the United States to not let the illegal drug problem get worse. As a practical matter, businesses cannot afford workers who get high and then injure themselves on the job.

Second, is your solution to do nothing? And who legalized abortion in the first place? The Supreme Court after a massive propaganda campaign.

Over the past two years has nothing to do with LBJ’s time in office. Do you think GM and Chrysler should have folded, putting millions out of work?

Peace,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

Here’s a further explanation of why I believe government is ineffective in dealing with this topic, as explained by someone far more eloquent than I could hope to be. Once you open the link, you can scroll down about half way to get to the specific discussion on abortion.

harrybrowne.org/GLO/Morality.htm

None of which has anyhting whatsoever to do with the morality of voting for a cnaidate who supports abortion on demand.

 

[Caramel]

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?

Hi!! Welcome!! If anyone blasts away at you or tells you that you’re “not really a Catholic” or that you’re going to hell they are just so so wrong and I apologize if you feel that way in this discussion. I’m so happy to have you here because I think it takes guts to step up to the plate in what one considers to be a “stacked” game .

The prolifers in this debate, well at least myself, are trying very hard to understand why a Catholic could or would be prochoice.

Posts tend to get lost in threads, unfortunately. I’ll go back to your prior posts. I apologize for not doing this before but I simply am getting lost here, wading through posts which are off-topic, etc.

Do you really think that prolifers are trying to attack you?? I personally don’t want to do that - I just want to understand. Do you really expect to be told that you are going to hell because of your beliefs?? I am very sorry that you feel that way. We are trying to discover the truth, not to attack others who are trying to discover the truth.

Peace,
christina

 

[mlchance]

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

Mea culpa maxima. In my haste to type, I didn’t state things clearly enough. Strike what’s bolded above. That is not what I meant.

And, Christopher68, I maintain I am not relying on the government to solve the abortion problem. You haven’t quoted me as saying anything different. I have quoted the Church’s position, which is that abortion must be illegal, and there must be appropriate penalties for people who break those laws. This will no more solve the abortion problem that laws against and penalties for theft have solved our theft problem.

But they are still required according to Church teaching, and Catholics who work against making abortion illegal do so contrary to that teaching.

Which, BTW, is part of the Ordinary Magesterium, and enjoys infallibility as a result, the lack of ex cathedra pronouncements notwithstanding.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Christopher68]

Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever. It is in the national security interests of the United States to not let the illegal drug problem get worse. As a practical matter, businesses cannot afford workers who get high and then injure themselves on the job.

Second, is your solution to do nothing? And who legalized abortion in the first place? The Supreme Court after a massive propaganda campaign.

Over the past two years has nothing to do with LBJ’s time in office. Do you think GM and Chrysler should have folded, putting millions out of work?

Peace,
Ed

I support free market capitalism. Companies that make good business decisions are rewarded, and companies that make poor business decisions should also bear the consequences of their actions. I do not support any of the government bailouts.

Regarding illegal drugs, if you make these drugs legal, you eliminate the black market which then immediately negates the reason why drugs enter the country illegally in the first place.

 

[Christopher68]

None of which has anyhting whatsoever to do with the morality of voting for a cnaidate who supports abortion on demand.

But it has everything to do with how government would only make things worse, and that was my point.

The Church can be RIGHT on the morality of the issue itself, but completely WRONG in their understanding of government.

 

[estesbob]

But it has everything to do with how government would only make things worse, and that was my point.

The Church can be RIGHT on the morality of the issue itself, but completely WRONG in their understanding of government.

The Church recognizes that one who supports abortion on demand is unfit to hold public office. You should also.

 

[Christopher68]

Mea culpa maxima. In my haste to type, I didn’t state things clearly enough. Strike what’s bolded above. That is not what I meant.

And, Christopher68, I maintain I am not relying on the government to solve the abortion problem. You haven’t quoted me as saying anything different. I have quoted the Church’s position, which is that abortion must be illegal, and there must be appropriate penalties for people who break those laws. This will no more solve the abortion problem that laws against and penalties for theft have solved our theft problem.

But they are still required according to Church teaching, and Catholics who work against making abortion illegal do so contrary to that teaching.

Which, BTW, is part of the Ordinary Magesterium, and enjoys infallibility as a result, the lack of ex cathedra pronouncements notwithstanding.

– Mark L. Chance.

The people who commit theft ‘know’ they are doing something wrong and are breaking the law. Someone who has an abortion is not doing anything illegal, and they likely do not believe they are doing anything wrong or immoral either. As I posted earlier, laws are inneffective when the behavior is not universally viewed as wrong. That is why (on another thread) I made the statement that the most effective way to combat the issue to attempt to change hearts and minds. Laws (and government) cannot do that.

 

[Caramel]

“…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…

I’ve tried to find other posts by you re this particular thread and I only found a few. But I don’t think you have answered the question:

How can you be a practicing Catholic and be prochoice at the same time? Disregarding the CCC or statements by the Pope or bishops or anyone else (except me because I’m the one asking the question) why are you prochoice??

I am anxiously waiting for your answer because I am truly confused here.

 

[Christopher68]

The Church recognizes that one who supports abortion on demand is unfit to hold public office. You should also.

Your comments skirt the issue I raised. I don’t believe government can solve this issue, and I gave examples why. Why do you believe government can solve this issue?

Oh, and for the record, of all the major party candidates running for the nomination last year, I was a Ron Paul supporter. And I believe Dr. Paul had what you would consider a strong pro-life position.

 

[estesbob]

Your comments skirt the issue I raised. I don’t believe government can solve this issue, and I gave examples why. Why do you believe government can solve this issue?

Oh, and for the record, of all the major party candidates running for the nomination last year, I was a Ron Paul supporter. And I believe Dr. Paul had what you would consider a strong pro-life position.

I am not skirting any issue-the issue is whether it is moral for a catholic to vote for one who supports abortion on demand. Whether the govt can solve the issue or not is irelevant

 

[BillP]

If one openly and honestly studies Church teaching and forms a “correct” conscience, there is no way to remain “pro choice” as a Catholic and not sin. Of course, this is how my individual conscience was formed and you can (and probably will) dismiss it.

What of those who “openly and honestly study the Church’s teaching” and come to a different conclusion?

Are we to conclude that their conscious is defectively formed because it disagrees with the Church?

If that is so, then why is the entire of concept of conscious articulated? Why not just say “follow the Church no matter how you feel about it?”

 

[BillP]

Wrong!! It’s not a matter of the Pope "providing a definitive, binding, infallible pronoucement… l

What is your point?

 

[Christopher68]

I am not skirting any issue-the issue is whether it is moral for a catholic to vote for one who supports abortion on demand. Whether the govt can solve the issue or not is irelevant

Whether the government can solve the issue or not is irrevelant!?! You have got to be kidding! That is the most important question you should be asking whenever you are asking government to undertake any actions!

What you’re saying is that as long as the candidate ‘says’ they are pro-life, that is the important thing. It doesn’t matter if their position actually achieves anything positive, or even makes the situation worse?

 

[estesbob]

Whether the government can solve the issue or not is irrevelant!?! You have got to be kidding! That is the most important question you should be asking whenever you are asking government to undertake any actions!

What you’re saying is that as long as the candidate ‘says’ they are pro-life, that is the important thing. It doesn’t matter if their position actually achieves anything positive, or even makes the situation worse?

I disagree with you that banning abortion would not be effective but that is another topic. A person who is so morally deficient as to support the killing of children is unfit for office.