Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[gakroeger]

Maybe what the Democrat party stands for is not reconcileable with Church teaching. Maybe the Bishops are teaching that we should be voting Republican.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=543

Thanks for this link Benadam, this article certainly hits the nail on the head…

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Originally Posted by zamboni forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
It sounds like you stopped taking the question seriously, which is what I am finding can happen when the subject turns to men taking equal responsibility or accept some kind of equal legal restraint just so that it does not all fall to the woman in the end, who you want to deprive of choice.

Dude, do you have some sort of mental block or something? NO ONE has the “choice” to commit MURDER! What part of that don’t you understand? To purposely kill an innocent child is MURDER - thats it, thats all.

I’m curious why you are trying so hard to justify killing innocent children.

 

[zamboni]

Zamboni, I saw where you brought this up before about the murder of Dr. Tiller. I haven’t seen one person in this discussion, whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” who condoned or sanctioned the murder of Dr. Tiller. Yet this doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

Perhaps no member on this thread has specifically condoned killing abortion doctors, but are you aware that one member here did say the following?..

That too was murder, so it was wrong.

But personally, I feel he got what he deserved.

Now I ask that you watch the following short video, which describes how the kind of talk which the self-described “Irish Catholic” individual above uses to express himself can and does lead to the same problem he decries so audibly, that of course being the problem of how to end murder: youtube.com/watch?v=6f0ZHaoSnf0

OK, let’s discuss men. Let’s discuss fathers. Let’s discuss fathers of unborn children who are left out of the “choice” to procure an abortion. Let’s discuss how emotionally devastating it can be for a father to sit back helplessly while the mother of the child he helped to conceive makes the choice to kill their baby.

little soldier is using what I will temporarily call the “fix” tactic, which is named in memory of member “fix,” who, at least until recently, seemed to be the person asking the most top-heavy questions unable to achieve an upright position. fix’s championship title looks like it is in peril now that little soldier has appeared on the battlefield. Watch out fix, because this member, like you, loves compartmentalization as a means toward oversimplification, leading to false polarization. Apparently, little soldier assumes that I, personally, (or my position on abortion as stated so far) would not automatically have as much sympathy for the unfortunate man he describes as for a woman in the same shoes as those. Apparently, he also thinks the pro-life solution of imposing one-eyed, half-baked, secular laws that only partially resemble one-half of church teaching will save the poor guy he is concerned about. If you really care about that man and his baby then you need to up your game, little soldier.

Dude, do you have some sort of mental block or something? NO ONE has the “choice” to commit MURDER! What part of that don’t you understand? To purposely kill an innocent child is MURDER - thats it, thats all. I’m curious why you are trying so hard to justify killing innocent children.

This is the same (apparently fundamentalist) member who thinks the murdered abortion doctor “got what he deserved.” This member is equally indiscriminate in describing my stated position as “trying to justify killing innocent children,” so it ought to be understood why I may choose to ignore any further posts made by this member.

Meantime, for anyone who may be hearing what I am actually saying — and even for those who just want to continue not listening — I offer the following video as a proposed storyline of what would happen if Jesus were to come to this thread as someone who supports choice for women, as long as the world remains filled with so many mad men (and a minority of women who behave just like them). youtube.com/watch?v=u_gePgfF53o&feature=related

Lastly, I offer the following video in the hope that we can all turn over a new leaf on this thread. Here is to hoping that the quality and tone of responses will dramatically improve from this point, forward. youtube.com/watch?v=ki13gDs7nPc&fmt=18&annotation_id=annotation_662032&feature=iv

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

This is the same (apparently fundamentalist) member who thinks the murdered abortion doctor “got what he deserved.”…

Yes, a murderer deserves death. An innocent child does not.
Do you have the mental capacity to see the difference?

Besides, I said that the doctor’s murder was also wrong. Yes, he deserved death, but at the hands of the law, not of a vigilante. Don’t distort my words.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Several murders of “pro-choice” activists have been discussed in this debate. I am going to post two links to articles that do not address that issue, but instead address a similar issue.

LifeNews.com/state4600.html

news.aol.com/article/anti-abortion-activist-jim-pouillon/666862

 

[Benadam]

]— I offer the following video as a proposed storyline of what would happen if Jesus were to come to this thread as someone who supports choice for women,

Zamboni, it is unfair to present the act of choosing as a right pro-lifers wish to deny women. It’s a sublime diversion that makes use of the stigma attached to organized religion. Our disagreement isn’t about whether a woman has a right to make choices, it’s about whether or not abortion should be a legal right.

Do you know why your side of this debate insists that what we are arguing about is an act inherent in the human condition? It’s a ridiculous notion that we would argue that.

It would sound like this;

Anti-choice;
*No, why would any one allow a woman to do anything but what she is told? If women are given the right to choose something how can we be secure as to the direction of society? Choices should be left to those prepared to make them. Our Superiors. *
Pro-choice:
This isn’t the dark ages anymore! We live in the 20th century it’s high time you join us. Why do you want to deny women the right to choose? Women desrve the right to choose what happens to them and how they conduct their lives!

Note that one side sounds the same.

I wonder if Our Blessed Mother would support the choice to abort the fruit of her womb as legal, and if God would support that it be provided on demand without injury to conscience.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Perhaps no member on this thread has specifically condoned killing abortion doctors, but are you aware that one member here did say the following?..

Yes.

little soldier is using what I will temporarily call the “fix” tactic, which is named in memory of member “fix,” who, at least until recently, seemed to be the person asking the most top-heavy questions unable to achieve an upright position. fix’s championship title looks like it is in peril now that little soldier has appeared on the battlefield. Watch out fix, because this member, like you, loves compartmentalization as a means toward oversimplification, leading to false polarization. Apparently, little soldier assumes that I, personally, (or my position on abortion as stated so far) would not automatically have as much sympathy for the unfortunate man he describes as for a woman in the same shoes as those. Apparently, he also thinks the pro-life solution of imposing one-eyed, half-baked, secular laws that only partially resemble one-half of church teaching will save the poor guy he is concerned about. If you really care about that man and his baby then you need to up your game, little soldier.

I care about the man, the baby, and the woman; while you appear to care only about the woman.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Perhaps no member on this thread has specifically condoned killing abortion doctors, but are you aware that one member here did say the following?..

Originally Posted by Irish_Catholic

If you are going to quote me acurately, then do not bold face the part of my quote that suits you. I said that the doctor’s murder was also wrong. Yes, he deserved death, but at the hands of the law, not of a vigilante. So for the third time, don’t distort my words.

 

[gakroeger]

Zamboni continues to distort the pro life position by quoting people out of context and attempting to paint us as something he would like us to be in order to justify his position. Even if any of his assertions were correct it would not justify his “pro choice” position. His latest attempt is to label us as fundamentalists; he apparently does not know what a fundamentalist is either. As explained in his own video link a fundamentalist is one who takes the bible literally. Anyone who knows anything at all about Catholic Church teaching understands that this is one thing that Catholics who follow Church teaching can never be accused of. Catholics are often falsely accused by Protestants of not reading the bible because most of us do not walk around with bibles quoting from them every day; this is because the Church has always encouraged Catholics to learn the bible through instruction from the Church and not to make personal literal interpretations of the bible. We Catholics learn the bibles true meaning from theologians interpretations and not our own. We learn the bible from reading it at mass and it is interpreted for us in the catechism. To accuse those who follow Church teaching of being fundamentalists only further displays their total lack of knowledge and understanding of Church teaching. I do not direct this post to Zamboni because it would fall on deaf ears, I post it to help others understand the ridiculous nature of his charge.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Several murders of “pro-choice” activists have been discussed in this debate. I am going to post two links to articles that do not address that issue, but instead address a similar issue. I posted them in haste this morning and I want to add some clarification.

LifeNews.com/state4600.html:

This link will take you to a news story which describes an assault on two “pro-life” activists. I didn’t post it because of the fact that “pro-life” activists are assaulted, but because of a quote that appears toward the end of the article:

"The pro-life group Live Action, which has exposed unethical and illegal practices at abortion centers like Planned Parenthood, condemned the assault.

**“Violence is not the answer whether a person supports or opposes human abortions” **… the group said." (emphasis added)

news.aol.com/article/anti-abortion-activist-jim-pouillon/666862:

The second link will take you to the news story of the murder of “pro-life” activist Jim Pouillon. I posted this link just to show that both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” activists are murdered. These murders are horrendous, just as any murder is. To murder a person, any person, is a grievous sin.

That includes the murder of unborn children.

 

[LittleSoldier]

little soldier is using what I will temporarily call the “fix” tactic, which is named in memory of member “fix,” who, at least until recently, seemed to be the person asking the most top-heavy questions unable to achieve an upright position. fix’s championship title looks like it is in peril now that little soldier has appeared on the battlefield. Watch out fix, because this member, like you, loves compartmentalization as a means toward oversimplification, leading to false polarization. Apparently, little soldier assumes that I, personally, (or my position on abortion as stated so far) would not automatically have as much sympathy for the unfortunate man he describes as for a woman in the same shoes as those. Apparently, he also thinks the pro-life solution of imposing one-eyed, half-baked, secular laws that only partially resemble one-half of church teaching will save the poor guy he is concerned about. If you really care about that man and his baby then you need to up your game, little soldier.

---

Zamboni posted the above quote in a reply to the following post:

*Originally Posted by LittleSoldier:

OK, let’s discuss men. Let’s discuss fathers. Let’s discuss fathers of unborn children who are left out of the “choice” to procure an abortion. Let’s discuss how emotionally devastating it can be for a father to sit back helplessly while the mother of the child he helped to conceive makes the choice to kill their baby.

Why is it that the perceived “right of privacy” only extends to the mother, not to the father or to the child that may be murdered? Why is it that just because a human being is inside another human being it is somehow OK for one of those human beings to murder the other?

You write of equal responsibility and equal legal restraint - how about equal rights?*​

The reason I am going to the trouble of posting all this again is that I want to make a point. Zamboni goes on in his response (to myself and to others) with the following quote:

“Meantime, for anyone who may be hearing what I am actually saying…”

Zamboni, I think the problem here is that people are not hearing what you are actually saying. There is a reason for that. Your posts are so riddled with vague concepts, terms that probably make sense only to you, bizarre phrases such as “top heavy questions unable to achieve an upright position,” “fix’s championship title looks like it is in peril,” “this member, like you, loves compartmentalization as a means toward oversimplification, leading to false polarization,” “pro-life solution of imposing one-eyed, half-baked secular laws that only partially resemble one-half of church teaching” and so forth, that what you are really trying to say gets lost.

I’m mentioning this because I can see that it has been an on-going problem in this discussion. Nobody is being paid by the word. Instead of good, honest communication, what you achieve is provoking other members into anger. I say that because that is the only reason I can imagine as to why you would go to all the trouble of writing all that stuff that means absolutely nothing, unless you really believe that this entire discussion was put here for your needs and that all the “pro-life” people must bow down in awe of you and wait for your approval like dogs wait for scraps of meat. It appears to me that you will not accept questions from others unless the questions meet some vague parameters, but nobody knows what those parameters are. When questions are asked of you, you never really respond with a reasonable answer; instead you go off on another tirade.

To be honest with you and with the other members who are taking part in this discussion, I am getting very frustrated and very tired. I am asking you to please stop this behavior. We are all adults and this is not the way a debate should be.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…To be honest with you and with the other members who are taking part in this discussion, I am getting very frustrated and very tired…

Understandable. You are arguing with an idealogue who is doing mental contortions to try to justify his position. He says he is a Christian and that he knows life is sacred, yet he also promotes abortion. These two irreconcilable positions are forcing him to post non-sensical posts. Hence your frustration.

Take comfort in the fact that we all see him for what he is. He isn’t fooling us, he isn’t fooling himself, and he certainly isn’t fooling God, so I don’t know who he thinks he’s fooling

 

[Benadam]

Thanks for this link Benadam, this article certainly hits the nail on the head…

Your welcome. I’ve felt for many years now that the democrat platform was at odds with the Catholic faith. I’m glad the Bishops have found the time fitting to speak up.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think the absolute truth is that there are no “pro-choice” Catholics. It’s an oxymoron. The terms “pro-choice” and “Catholic” are mutually exclusive.

End of story.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Understandable. You are arguing with an idealogue who is doing mental contortions to try to justify his position. He says he is a Christian and that he knows life is sacred, yet he also promotes abortion. These two irreconcilable positions are forcing him to post non-sensical posts. Hence your frustration.

Take comfort in the fact that we all see him for what he is. He isn’t fooling us, he isn’t fooling himself, and he certainly isn’t fooling God, so I don’t know who he thinks he’s fooling

Thank you.

There is more than one forum member in this discussion who knows how to b.s. I’m sure that each and every one of us could do it. We all recognize what Zamboni has been doing in almost every single post he or she has written. We all saw it for what it was right from the start. But there was a far more important task for us and that was to present our arguments for the people who read but don’t post. I’ve tried just like everyone else but it’s turned into a debacle.

When I was in college I wrote a paper for a biology class. When the professor handed the graded papers back he said "Everyone should write like . So I asked him why I got a “C.” He said, “Next time, say something.”

I realize that by stating this I am leaving myself open for an attack. But at this point I just do not care because I know that everything I stated in this discussion was and is the truth.

So that is that.

 

[zamboni]

Yes, a murderer deserves death. An innocent child does not. Do you have the mental capacity to see the difference? Besides, I said that the doctor’s murder was also wrong. Yes, he deserved death, but at the hands of the law, not of a vigilante. Don’t distort my words.

Pro-life/pro-death hypocrisy in action. Am I still distorting your words? Why do pro-lilfers not see their reflection in the mirror when they read chapter 8 of the Gospel of John? Do you help set captives free or try to lock more up? How does any pro-life law-pusher answer for their sin of casting the first stone?

Gospel of John 8:1-11

******Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.**”

Zamboni, it is unfair to present the act of choosing as a right pro-lifers wish to deny women. It’s a sublime diversion that makes use of the stigma attached to organized religion. Our disagreement isn’t about whether a woman has a right to make choices, it’s about whether or not abortion should be a legal right.

I thought you were one of the good guys but now you are trying to lump me in with whatever pre-conceived profile you work with when addressing someone who votes pro-choice at election time, not that I have to care about only abortion to do that in my country. What diversion is there, sublime or otherwise, in saying that pro-lifers who are as lazy and uncommitted to understanding more than one side of a conception problem should keep their noses out of other people’s business? It should not be up to you, Benadam, to decide if abortion should be a legal right for others. Why not just govern yourself and stay out of other women’s panties? Or do you possess a right to cast the first stone like the rest of the Pharisees around here?

I wonder if Our Blessed Mother would support the choice to abort the fruit of her womb as legal, and if God would support that it be provided on demand without injury to conscience.

God can see the whole issue, so I would bet my life that He and Our Blessed Mother do not appreciate the rearguard-action war that pro-lifers fight. One of the many previous questions I have posed on this thread that no one tried to answer is what makes pro-lifers believe that God needs them to protect the unborn when the Gospel of Matthew 3:9 states:

"Do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

Yes. I care about the man, the baby, and the woman; while you appear to care only about the woman.

You’re only making it hard for me to miss member “fix” with your desire to be oversimple.

Zamboni… Your posts are so riddled with vague concepts, terms that probably make sense only to you, bizarre phrases such as “top heavy questions unable to achieve an upright position,” “fix’s championship title looks like it is in peril,” “this member, like you, loves compartmentalization as a means toward oversimplification, leading to false polarization,” “pro-life solution of imposing one-eyed, half-baked secular laws that only partially resemble one-half of church teaching” and so forth, that what you are really trying to say gets lost.

It is obvious to me that you are either Caramel’s twin sister, one in the same person, or just sent by her. No one outside of this thread complains about my terms of reference (except other Pharisees). I shut Caramel down for trying to get me to explain my terms of reference into oblivion, among other things, which is exactly what you are now doing… whether playing dumb or not faking it, please do not address any more Caramelized posts to me, little soldier.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Pro-life/pro-death hypocrisy in action. Am I still distorting your words?..

Yes. You are distorting my words AND Church teaching.

I am not pro-death. I am PRO-JUSTICE.
It is un-just to kill and innocent child.
It is NOT un-just to bring justice to a murderer.

Your reasoning is flawed, and your priorities are backwards.

A civilized society protects the innocent and hands out justice to the guilty.
Again, what part of that don’t you get?

 

[LittleSoldier]

LOL - I know this was a typo but you spelled my name as “Littlesolider.” Thank you! I do feel a little more solid!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Zamboni continues to distort the pro life position by quoting people out of context and attempting to paint us as something he would like us to be in order to justify his position. Even if any of his assertions were correct it would not justify his “pro choice” position. His latest attempt is to label us as fundamentalists; he apparently does not know what a fundamentalist is either. As explained in his own video link a fundamentalist is one who takes the bible literally. Anyone who knows anything at all about Catholic Church teaching understands that this is one thing that Catholics who follow Church teaching can never be accused of. Catholics are often falsely accused by Protestants of not reading the bible because most of us do not walk around with bibles quoting from them every day; this is because the Church has always encouraged Catholics to learn the bible through instruction from the Church and not to make personal literal interpretations of the bible. We Catholics learn the bibles true meaning from theologians interpretations and not our own. We learn the bible from reading it at mass and it is interpreted for us in the catechism. To accuse those who follow Church teaching of being fundamentalists only further displays their total lack of knowledge and understanding of Church teaching. I do not direct this post to Zamboni because it would fall on deaf ears, I post it to help others understand the ridiculous nature of his charge.

I would like to thank Gakroeger for starting this discussion. I believe we have accomplished some good, in spite of the obstacles facing us. God bless you!!

 

[gakroeger]

Pro-life/pro-death hypocrisy in action. Am I still distorting your words? Why do pro-lilfers not see their reflection in the mirror when they read chapter 8 of the Gospel of John? Do you help set captives free or try to lock more up? How does any pro-life law-pusher answer for their sin of casting the first stone?

Gospel of John 8:1-11

******Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.**”

I was just a short time ago Zamboni was accusing us of being fundamentalists (interpreting the bible literally) now, he does the same thing. I wonder if he read or understood the last sentence?