Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[gakroeger]

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?

 

[Caramel]

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?

Thank you for providing these links to the Catechism. I was actually reading them early this morning before you posted. I opened the Catechism right on the part your first link takes one to. It is clear to me that, as a Catholic, I must be prolife. I agree with every statement made in the Catechism regarding abortion.

Does anyone disagree?? Should I be prochoice while still remaining a Catholic?? Is it possible to be Catholic and prochoice??

 

[crazzeto]

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.

 

[rep140]

You are not likely to get much discussion here. If Catholics for Choice has a web site you could try there. Let us know if you do. I’d like to read the replies.

 

[gakroeger]

You are not likely to get much discussion here. If Catholics for Choice has a web site you could try there. Let us know if you do. I’d like to read the replies.

Good point, I just sent an email to their website inviting them to this thread…

 

[EmeraldWings]

Code of Canon Law, listed on the Vatican website.
“Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

basically it says, if you get an abortion, you face excommunication.

people just don’t trust in God enough anymore, Jesus says don’t worry, how can we honestly say “Jesus I trust in You” and then turn around and question His commandments?
and not just that, but the authority of His Church is questioned to, the church says no abortion in any case, and yet people decide for themselves, “well it’s ok because the baby will suffer if it’s born” or “it’s ok because the mother was raped” or “it’s ok because the mother risks dieing if she doesn’t”…all these arguments are simply trying to stop death and suffering, but death and suffering happen every day whether we want it or not, it’s up to God to take a life, not us, and suffering is a part of life that we as Catholics are called to embrace, and it’s not up to us to decide if someone should suffer or not either, that is also Gods call, we can help those who are suffering, but not by killing them, because by that they do not benefit from the suffering, and we do not get a chance to be charitable towards them…well, i’m just ranting i think, i kinda just wanted to post that first thing i said…sooo i guess that’s all, hope this helps somehow e,e

 

[carinapir]

Well, it seems pretty obvious that if you conform to the Catechism that you cannot be pro-choice.

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.

You cannot take away the biological argument and still have a debate. Those who are pro-choice fundamentally disagree with Catechism 2270.

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

In addition, the CC also does not have any proof that an embryo is human from conception. The CC believes it and has very good reasons for believing it but there is no actual proof.

This is where the discuss would need to start, IMHO.

 

[gakroeger]

Well, it seems pretty obvious that if you conform to the Catechism that you cannot be pro-choice.

You cannot take away the biological argument and still have a debate. Those who are pro-choice fundamentally disagree with Catechism 2270.

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

In addition, the CC also does not have any proof that an embryo is human from conception. The CC believes it and has very good reasons for believing it but there is no actual proof.

This is where the discuss would need to start, IMHO.

Okay, however, this is not a biological argument and I don’t think “pro choice” people would want a biological argument because virtually all scientific evidence supports that the embryo is human from conception. As I stated in the first post, if someone thinks they have evidence to the contrary, it is welcome. If “pro choice” people disagree with section 2270 I would hope they could give some explanation of why they disagree with it. Their disagreement is not biological it is theological.

 

[carinapir]

I don’t think “pro choice” people would want a biological argument because virtually all scientific evidence supports that the embryo is human from conception.

Actually, the contention would not be that the embryo is not human, that would be silly. It’s not magically a cat or a horse. It is that there is no life or soul yet. I suppose that this life or soul discussion would be theological, as you said, so I see your point.

It is fair to say that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a soul, which I suppose you already agree with, hence the theological discussion.

I wonder if a pro-choice person has thought it through that carefully. They might just “feel” that the embryo is not alive yet, presumably based on the fact that we really don’t know for sure when God puts our souls in our bodies. They might not be able to come up with philosophical or theological arguments.

 

[carinapir]

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.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Well, it seems pretty obvious that if you conform to the Catechism that you cannot be pro-choice.

You cannot take away the biological argument and still have a debate. Those who are pro-choice fundamentally disagree with Catechism 2270.

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

In addition, the CC also does not have any proof that an embryo is human from conception. The CC believes it and has very good reasons for believing it but there is no actual proof.

This is where the discuss would need to start, IMHO.

Not only do I not understand this line of reasoning, at least one “pro-choice” feminist I once heard on television wouldn’t seem to either. She said: “Of course the fetus is a human being. It’s not a dog or a pig, it’s human. And of course it’s alive or there wouldn’t be an issue. The point is that it is not viable.” She was basing her abortion position on viability, not whether or not the fetus is human.

What exactly does one argue an embryo or fetus is if not human? It’s a human embryo or fetus, as opposed to some other species. By definition, they’re human. I find this “debate” incomprehensible. Are we next going to debate whether or not President Obama is President Obama?

 

[carinapir]

Not only do I not understand this line of reasoning, at least one “pro-choice” feminist I once heard on television wouldn’t seem to either. She said: “Of course the fetus is a human being. It’s not a dog or a pig, it’s human. And of course it’s alive or there wouldn’t be an issue. The point is that it is not viable.” She was basing her abortion position on viability, not whether or not the fetus is human.

What exactly does one argue an embryo or fetus is if not human? It’s a human embryo or fetus, as opposed to some other species. By definition, they’re human. I find this “debate” incomprehensible.

Yes, I clarified in a subsequent post. Actually it was the OP used the word human and I assumed that we were all assuming that the word encompassed a human with a soul or viable, etc. but then I realized that we were apparently not making this assumption.

 

[tobbias88]

This is not a Catholic issue per se. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…cavemen!! all agree that killing your own species is the surest way to extinction. It just doesn’t make any sense.

One has only to look at Nature. What female of the species - any species - kills its own offspring? Even going down the animal chain to reptilian levels - mother croc goes to infinite pains to protect her young, even though they were originally just eggs & external to herself. I believe similar examples can be found in birds, amphibians and insects. It is a core activity of any living thing to protect, cherish and nurse its offspring even if it means the death of the parent. This is what makes us sentient beings. Without this maternal instinct, a species could not have evolved and certainly could not have survived.

Even the most callous atheist will admit that abortion is a total abberation of cosmic laws.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

This is not a Catholic issue per se. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…cavemen!! all agree that killing your own species is the surest way to extinction. It just doesn’t make any sense.

One has only to look at Nature. What female of the species - any species - kills its own offspring? Even going down the animal chain to reptilian levels - mother croc goes to infinite pains to protect her young, even though they were originally just eggs & external to herself. I believe similar examples can be found in birds, amphibians and insects. It is a core activity of any living thing to protect, cherish and nurse its offspring even if it means the death of the parent. This is what makes us sentient beings. Without this maternal instinct, a species could not have evolved and certainly could not have survived.

Even the most callous atheist will admit that abortion is a total abberation of cosmic laws.

okay, 1. I am adamantly and unchangably pro-life.
2. I agree with you entirely, the problem is I have to poke a hole in your theory …sorry

Fish eat their own young. We breed several kinds of freshwater tropical fish and ALL of them will eat their own eggs, or in livebearers, their own young. We have to have special contraptions to keep the newborns away from the mother, and even in those cases we still lose a few because sometimes she’ll eat them as soon as they come out of her.

But yes, for all other animals that I know of, this is true. Not true for fish, however. LOL

 

[tobbias88]

The Feminist quote:
She said: “Of course the fetus is a human being. It’s not a dog or a pig, it’s human. And of course it’s alive or there wouldn’t be an issue. The point is that it is not viable.’

So what? Neither is a 4-month old baby, a 6-yr old child, a hospital patient, an 88-yr old granny. So should we kill them all since they cannot sustain themselves?

On 2nd thoughts I wonder how long she would be ‘viable’ if left alone on a desert island?

That is an equally absurd argument.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

The Feminist quote:
She said: “Of course the fetus is a human being. It’s not a dog or a pig, it’s human. And of course it’s alive or there wouldn’t be an issue. The point is that it is not viable.’

So what? Neither is a 4-month old baby, a 6-yr old child, a hospital patient, an 88-yr old granny. So should we kill them all since they cannot sustain themselves?

On 2nd thoughts I wonder how long she would be ‘viable’ if left alone on a desert island?

That is an equally absurd argument.

I saw an excellent bumber sticker that read:

“Life begins at conception, viability begins after high school.”

 

[tobbias88]

Whiteacre Girl wrote;

Fish eat their own young.

So why didn’t they become extinct? If it eats its offspring then there ain’t no more of that family around. Maybe you are keeping your fish in abnormal conditions for them to behave so. It just doesn’t make sense and it isn’t Nature’s way…in the wild.

 

[Barb3]

I don’t understand why any Catholic could possibly be pro-choice. Also I’m going to get a bit “personal” because I have three adopted children in my family AND if their mothers had decided to abort these babies I would be totally at a loss of one grandson and two children of my nephew.
I attended a one-day program at a retreat center last month entitled “The Catholic Church in the World” and I asked the speaker why Democrats seem to feel they must be pro-choice (Catholic or not) and he told me that they felt they would lose an election if they weren’t pro-choice – so what is more important — standing up for those babies in the womb or winning an election???
I know what I would chose!!!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Whiteacre Girl wrote;

Fish eat their own young.

So why didn’t they become extinct? If it eats its offspring then there ain’t no more of that family around. Maybe you are keeping your fish in abnormal conditions for them to behave so. It just doesn’t make sense and it isn’t Nature’s way…in the wild.

No, it’s true in the wild too. It’s very true in the wild, fish are also cannibalistic. It is very much nature’s way. There are only a handful of fish that won’t eat their young, and protect the newly born. But even that protection has a time limit, and once it wears off, they will eat them.

The reason they aren’t extinct is because in the wild the young either have better places to hide, or the adults are migratory and leave after they spawn so they don’t eat the eggs. You can look all this up on wikipedia or the encyclopedia of your choice.

I am not saying this to be prochoice, I am saying this because we need to make sure all our arguments can’t be smacked down by inaccuracy. If we were to use this argument, it would be made more effective is we said developed life forms don’t eat their young. Unless you wish that we were all dumbed down to the level of fish, at best to justify this destruction.

 

[gakroeger]

This is not a Catholic issue per se. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…cavemen!! all agree that killing your own species is the surest way to extinction. It just doesn’t make any sense.

One has only to look at Nature. What female of the species - any species - kills its own offspring? Even going down the animal chain to reptilian levels - mother croc goes to infinite pains to protect her young, even though they were originally just eggs & external to herself. I believe similar examples can be found in birds, amphibians and insects. It is a core activity of any living thing to protect, cherish and nurse its offspring even if it means the death of the parent. This is what makes us sentient beings. Without this maternal instinct, a species could not have evolved and certainly could not have survived.

Even the most callous atheist will admit that abortion is a total abberation of cosmic laws.

No, the overall abortion issue is not a Catholic (or even a religious) issue, it is a moral issue, however, the reason I started this thread is because there appears to be a large percentage of Catholics that call themselves “pro choice” and I am trying to understand how they can reconcile their differences with Church teaching. They are obviously not in full communion with the Church so why do they still profess to be Catholic? There are whole groups of organizations out there that call themselves Catholic and preach heresy. Do they think that they can influence the Church to abandon Holy Scripture? The Church teaching has been consistent for 2000 years. Do these groups believe they know better than spiritually inspired scripture? I would like to try to understand where they are coming from. The Catholic Church has not survived for 2000 year by straying from divinely inspired writings and tradition.

I believe where these groups fell off the rails was with contraception. I have had Catholic friends who thought Catholic teaching on contraception was unreasonable back in the 60’s so they rationalized their use of artificial contraception. Once this break with Church teaching occurred, it was all downhill from there. As Pope Paul VI warned in his encyclical “Humane Vitae” once the “marriage act” was decoupled from human reproduction, people began to believe that human sexuality was not for reproduction as God intended but was for their pleasure alone. Until this mind set occurred, people accepted pregnancy and children as they came; after this new “entitlement” happened, unwanted pregnancies were no longer accepted and the rationalization about “viability”, when souls are created and all of the rest of the excuses for abortion began. No matter how the argument proceeds, the bottom line is a human life is snuffed out for the convenience of others and no amount of rationalization can change this fact or make it morally acceptable.