Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Worthy5]

One way to change hearts is to teach them what is wrong by passing a law against doing what is wrong.

Not necessarily, a hard ball law approach is often the thing that causes people to react in a negative way to that which they see as authoritarian.

 

[estesbob]

Citizenship forms this poster’s politics.(or a good part of it)

But how is your citizenship formed? Mine flows from my Faith as, I hope, do all things in my life.

 

[estesbob]

Not necessarily, a hard ball law approach is often the thing that causes people to react in a negative way to that which they see as authoritarian.

The empirical evidence is that making abortion illegal limits it susbtantially. As before mentioned we saw a four fold increase in abortions in the two years following the imposition of Roe on this country.

From a moral standpoint it doesnt matter. Any civilized soicety should recognize that the right to life is the most basic right there is. No right can be enjoyed by those denied the right to life.

 

[Worthy5]

=estesbob;5940542]The empirical evidence is that making abortion illegal limits it susbtantially. As before mentioned we saw a four fold increase in abortions in the two years following the imposition of Roe on this country

Provide your source.

From a moral standpoint it doesnt matter. Any civilized soicety should recognize that the right to life is the most basic right there is. No right can be enjoyed by those denied the right to life.

Well civilized societies also know that expansive use of the govt police power taxes resources and creates an autocratic system that actually threatens more individual rights over the long term. So there.
:idea::nunchuk::takethat:

 

[Worthy5]

This poster does not believe one’s faith requires that one must support the expansive use of the govt police power to address the abortion problem nor does one’s faith require one to become a one issue voter in a democratic-republic form of government based on the rule of law.

 

[estesbob]

This poster does not believe one’s faith requires that one must support the expansive use of the govt police power to address the abortion problem nor does one’s faith require one to become a one issue voter in a democratic-republic form of government based on the rule of law.

The “one issue” voter is another canard thrown at those Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Church. It shows a complete misunderstaning of Catholic teaching on abortion

I am somewhat of a disadvantage is discussing this issue with you since I have chosen to reveal my faith and you have not.

 

[Caramel]

Usually when you hear the term “hard core” pro-life you know it it being used by someone who has compromised their faith in favor of their Politics.

The question all Catholics should ask themselves is :

“Does you Faith form your politics or does your politics form your Faith”?

That is just too easy to answer. Of course to us “hardcore prolifers” everything comes from our faith.

 

[Caramel]

Emphasis added

This stuck in my mind and I had to go back to it. “Hard-core pro-life”. I have heard hard-core used to describe pornography but never pro- life. However, I decided to do a google search on hardcore to see what I found. I found several pages of websites for pornography and music but nothing for pro life. Searches on online dictionaries produced much the same.

Then I found an Oxford University Press online encyclopedia at encyclopedia.com/doc/1O996-fervent.html , here is what it said;

**Hardcore

fervent
• adjective a fervent prayer
synonyms : impassioned, passionate, intense, vehement, ardent, sincere, fervid, heartfelt; enthusiastic, zealous, fanatical, wholehearted, avid, eager, keen, committed, dedicated, devout; literary perfervid. **

Yep, that is us.

Yes that is most certainly us!!

 

[zamboni]

I did a bit of reading on catholicsforchoice.org because this interests me.

It seems like, as you said, the legal aspect is a huge part of it too and for me that tends to carry more weight. It’s the same reason why I voted to allow Same Sex marriages in California. Pro-Choice Catholics might 100% agree with the catechism but still feel that in this country, people get to chose things for themselves: “Prevention Not Prohibition.” And I’d have to agree to an extent. Some people seem obsessed with outlawing abortion when their son or daughter is getting themselves into the same trouble because they are distracted by their cause. To me it seems like the Sola Fide and Salvation by Works debate, both sides are basically taking about the same thing, but arrive at the conclusion via a different route.

So, if a Pro-Choice Catholic agrees 100% with the catechism, your theological debate moves on to a different topic.

I see no conflict either with voting pro-choice while believing the Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world. Until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism — I will support separation of Church and State so that the Church is not obliged to conform to a falling, unrepentant world. And I will quote John the Baptist who said bear fruit according to repentance.

 

[estesbob]

I see no conflict either with voting pro-choice while believing the Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world. Until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism — I will support separation of Church and State so that the Church is not obliged to conform to a falling, unrepentant world. And I will quote John the Baptist who said bear fruit according to repentance.

‘’

The ‘‘separation of Church and state’’ does not mean - and it can never mean - separating our Catholic faith from our public witness, our political choices and our political actions. That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus when he commands us to be ‘‘leaven in the world’’ and to ‘‘make disciples of all nations.’’ That kind of separation steals the moral content of a society.

Archbishop Chaput

 

[Caramel]

I see this discussion has been redirected again by this ‘limited government’ nonsense. It’as a joke to pick out this law as the poster child for limited government and it’s a joke to to argue that it shouldn’t be passed because of the governments inability to address the drug problem or poverty.

And that is simply because one poster takes every abortion thread off-topic as soon as he can and then points new posters to it as the “topic” of this thread; while at the same time he cannot (or will not) provide any constructive solutions to the abortion problem. It is really a shame.

 

[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…

Sonny what did you do? What was your “bit?” Would you please list the post numbers where you have addressed what you “did” in this thread?

I’m asking (again) because I can’t find it.

 

[gakroeger]

I see no conflict either with voting pro-choice while believing the Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world. Until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism — I will support separation of Church and State so that the Church is not obliged to conform to a falling, unrepentant world. And I will quote John the Baptist who said bear fruit according to repentance.

Wow, talk about a disconnected stretch. What did you find in 2271 that lead you to this? I have seen some pretty twisted logic, however, this is totally incomprehensible.

 

[Caramel]

I see no conflict either with voting pro-choice while believing the Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world. Until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism — I will support separation of Church and State so that the Church is not obliged to conform to a falling, unrepentant world. And I will quote John the Baptist who said bear fruit according to repentance.

OK let me get this straight. You are willing to allow the killing of the unborn in our society until we get to live in a utopia, which we cannot possible get to with the killing of the unborn. How do you expect this “perfect world where life will be respected” to come about if people continue to let this killing continue?

 

[Worthy5]

And that is simply because one poster takes every abortion thread off-topic as soon as he can and then points new posters to it as the “topic” of this thread; while at the same time he cannot (or will not) provide any constructive solutions to the abortion problem. It is really a shame.

Come on Caramel, you know the govt can take other steps to deal with the abortion problem. And if posters just want to debate the moral issue than go ahead, no one is stopping it. The legal issue plays a part and can be debated as well–because that is often the rationale for some who are pro-choice. This poster never said he/she is Pro-choice but the argument can be made. And this is just a discussion—nothing more. There is nothing shameful about it. And if everyone had the same opinion—then there would be nothing to discuss.

 

[estesbob]

And that is simply because one poster takes every abortion thread off-topic as soon as he can and then points new posters to it as the “topic” of this thread; while at the same time he cannot (or will not) provide any constructive solutions to the abortion problem. It is really a shame.

 

[estesbob]

Wow, talk about a disconnected stretch. What did you find in 2271 that lead you to this? I have seen some pretty twisted logic, however, this is totally incomprehensible.

Agreed. here 2271 in its entirety. i see no wiggle room here nor any referene to the seperation if Church and State:

**2271 **Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

 

[Worthy5]

 

[Benadam]

Well civilized societies also know that expansive use of the govt police power taxes resources and creates an autocratic system that actually threatens more individual rights over the long term. So there.
:idea::nunchuk::takethat:

Yes, a law protecting the individual’s right to live will threaten individual rights. It’s too much power for our evil government to be entrusted with.

 

[jmcrae]

Murder and rape are universally recognized as being wrong. Despite what you or I may believe, abortion is not universally recognized as wrong.

Slavery was not universally recognized as wrong, until it became illegal. Even today, no doubt there are those who believe that the color of a person’s skin determines his fate in life, and that the darker the skin, the lowlier that person’s job should be. Fortunately, it is now illegal to discriminate against persons on the basis of skin color, so that persons with darker skin now have at least the legal right to apply for any job for which they are qualified, even though in too many cases, employers will still look at their skin color and assume they are not really qualified. However, the person being discriminated against has recourse to the law, and can sue for damages.

It is virtually impossible to enforce laws against behaviors that are not universally accepted as being wrong. That’s the difference.

Actually, as we see with human rights legislation around discrimination according to skin color. it is perfectly possible to enforce legislation that not everyone agrees with.