Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Worthy5]

Yes, they were. It’s a shame more people today – especially those in government – don’t respect the Founders’ vision, especially the parts about how everyone is equal and endowed with unalienable rights, among which are included the right to life.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SteveGC]

This poster does see the point you all are making. The real point is how you guys cannot accept that reasonable people can disagree on this. You can disagree and say govt power should be used here and the women has no say, but reasonable people can disagree with you on this—and it does not make them " evil" abortionist.

we can accept that you can disagree. I personally don’t call anyone who disagrees an “evil abortionist”. I just say that they do not see that the protection of human life from murder is a necessary role for government. Let them be limited in everything else…but get them fully involved in protecting human life. Not to the exclusion of everyone else’s responsibility in preserving human life, but let’s start by not making it legally permissive to kill. That’s the point I would strive to make with you. Be pro-limited govt in everything EXCEPT the protection of all human life. Let them have full control over the laws governing this protection. They have almost full control of that arena already…and I don’t recognize any threat to limited govt because of the vast amount they already possess. why does a line even have to be drawn? Life is life is life. Conception is life, let’s include it under the law from the very beginning. It’s not making the choice for the mom. It’s simply not letting mom kill a human life. It’s not about mom’s right to her body…this is about the human body within her human body. It is dependent on her biologically, physically, but it is independently human and deserving of full protection from murder. Govt doesn’t get to make all the choices, you’re right…nor should they be able to. But they should be able to inflict penalty when we murder. Mom can still choose to have the baby killed…but there should be significant penalty for those doing the actual killing.

The law is not *soley and exclusively *about protecting morality—we do not live in a Theocracy.

No, you’re right…law is not about protecting morality, but it should atleast be about protecting LIFE, regardless of your age, regardless of your level of dependency on another human.

 

[Caramel]

BTW, I forgot to post this earlier. To slide things back toward the topic of how how to reconcile pro-choice Catholics with Church teaching, the answer is found inside the confessional, and it involves pro-choice Catholics repenting from their error.

– Mark L. Chance.

That is an extremely good point you have brought up and it is one that I haven’t seen posted elsewhere (although I’m still new and haven’t been able to read every post on the topic.)

Good for you!! You’ve brought the thread back on-topic (although a certain poster will certainly attempt to move it off-topic again) and stated something that prochoice Catholics need to know. God will forgive all sins - all we have to do is atone and repent via the Sacrament of Confession. God hasn’t abandoned women who have obtained abortions, nor has He abandoned the greedy physicians and the directors of money-making companies like Planned Parenthood. We can all be forgiven for the sins we have committed.

Thank you for bringing up this point!!

 

[Caramel]

we can accept that you can disagree. I personally don’t call anyone who disagrees an “evil abortionist”. I just say that they do not see that the protection of human life from murder is a necessary role for government. Let them be limited in everything else…but get them fully involved in protecting human life. Not to the exclusion of everyone else’s responsibility in preserving human life, but let’s start by not making it legally permissive to kill. That’s the point I would strive to make with you. Be pro-limited govt in everything EXCEPT the protection of all human life. Let them have full control over the laws governing this protection. They have almost full control of that arena already…and I don’t recognize any threat to limited govt because of the vast amount they already possess. why does a line even have to be drawn? Life is life is life. Conception is life, let’s include it under the law from the very beginning. It’s not making the choice for the mom. It’s simply not letting mom kill a human life. It’s not about mom’s right to her body…this is about the human body within her human body. It is dependent on her biologically, physically, but it is independently human and deserving of full protection from murder. Govt doesn’t get to make all the choices, you’re right…nor should they be able to. But they should be able to inflict penalty when we murder. Mom can still choose to have the baby killed…but there should be significant penalty for those doing the actual killing.

No, you’re right…law is not about protecting morality, but it should atleast be about protecting LIFE, regardless of your age, regardless of your level of dependency on another human.

You are so right!!

What could possibly be more important for the federal government than to protect human life?? Throw out the ridiculous social programs, don’t build an unncecessary bridge in Alaska, get rid of “pet projects” that are not needed, and focus on life - this should be the basis on which all other government projects should be built.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - what is the first word? It is “life” and the protection of human life, the protection of human beings, the protection of “persons” is the most important job of every government.

Get rid of the waste but for God’s sake please protect all human beings regardless of gender, age, racial background…These are alll subsets of “human beings.” Forget everything else and put the emphasis on protection of human beings. Nothing else is more important!!

 

[fix]

In regard to the OP I would also mention:

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

I mention this because co-called pro choice Catholics have to reconcile Church teaching on society and the dignity of life with claiming it is morally acceptable to hold a “pro choice” position.

 

[gakroeger]

BTW, I forgot to post this earlier. To slide things back toward the topic of how how to reconcile pro-choice Catholics with Church teaching, the answer is found inside the confessional, and it involves pro-choice Catholics repenting from their error.

– Mark L. Chance.

Yes, thank you for attempting to bring this thread back on topic, we have already had a 1000 plus post thread to discuss the endless rambling of rationalization. This thread is to discuss the moral aspects and especially seek (name removed by moderator)ut from “pro choice” Catholics on the moral aspects of Church teaching.

Interestingly, we are having problems getting “pro choice” Catholics to step up and defend their position. Could it be that their position is indefensible?

 

[Caramel]

Yes, thank you for attempting to bring this thread back on topic, we have already had a 1000 plus post thread to discuss the endless rambling of rationalization. This thread is to discuss the moral aspects and especially seek (name removed by moderator)ut from “pro choice” Catholics on the moral aspects of Church teaching.

Interestingly, we are having problems getting “pro choice” Catholics to step up and defend their position. Could it be that their position is indefensible?

One thing we could do is vote on this thread. I already have and it has five stars. If everyone votes the thread will have the appropriate number of stars after it which would make it stand out.

I don’t know if this works but it’s worth a shot. Maybe the prochoice Catholics are not seeing the title of this thread; yet there are already over 1,000 views so people are at least reading what we write. Of course there is no way to tell how many lurkers are prochoice Catholics…

 

[Caramel]

I posted a comment several pages back, but another comment came to my mind when I was looking over the other comments on this topic.
I’m sure all of you remember the Notre Dame graduation and the protests because Notre Dame not only invited President Obama to the graduation but also gave him a special award. (Frankly I wasn’t upset by the invitation but was upset because of the award).
At any rate, I’m sure all of you also remember the protests at the Notre Dame graduation (can’t remember how many people protested) – BUT are you aware of ONE of the protesters – Norma McRay – who is Norma McRay??? – she’s “Roe” in Roe vs. Wade and she not only has changed her mind about abortion BUT has become a Catholic – how about that reversal???

Norma McRay was duped. She was used as a political tool. She admitted that she was a young Texas girl who didn’t know what she was doing. She was used by those who wanted to get the abortion laws overturned. And they succeeded. But Norma McRay did change her mind and she grew up and has obviously discovered the truth. She is a woman that I am proud of. She has made a complete reversal and isn’t afraid to let people know that she was wrong in the beginning.

If it hadn’t been Norma McRay it would have been someone else. It was going to happen because we had (and have) a Supreme Court that twists and turns the Constitution so that it means whatever the Court wants it to mean. We really have no Constitution at this point. We have a Supreme Court that has way too much power.

The Constitution was based on religion and morals. That went out the window. Now it is whatever the current Supreme Court decides it means.

We live in a democracy. But it won’t last. Democracies never do. They commit suicide.

 

[Caramel]

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.

Why do you think that sola fide and salvation by works are talking about the same thing? I’m asking because in my mind they are completely different. Of course this would be leading the thread off-topic but I am confused here. Are your a prochoice Catholic? Do you think that prochoice Catholics are personally, vehemently against abortion but decide that choice of the pregnant women is the most important factor, with much higher weight than the possibility that an innocent human being is killed?

I’m asking simply because I don’t understand your post.

 

[Caramel]

Oh, but we guys can accept that reasonable people can disagree on abortion; what we cannot except is that those reasonable people are correct. So, sure, you’re quite reasonable, but you’re also quite wrong.



– Mark L. Chance.

Amen.

 

[Caramel]

This is somewhat off-topic but I’m going to post it because it shows how easily people can be duped. I have been a member of Amnesty International for about four years and that included sending them monetary contributions. Today I found out that they are proabortion and have been for several years. I didn’t know this because I didn’t bother to find out. The other work they do is outstanding but there is a big problem with their support of abortion.

Of course I already called them and cancelled my membership. But I wonder how much of my money has gone to support their proabortion position.

Right now I feel horrible about myself because I was duped once again.

Maybe some prochoice Catholics are the way they are because they haven’t really thought about it enough to understand that abortion is wrong. Maybe when they read our words they will understand or will at least be interested enough to check into it, even if they don’t post.

I hope so…

 

[gakroeger]

Maybe some prochoice Catholics are the way they are because they haven’t really thought about it enough to understand that abortion is wrong. Maybe when they read our words they will understand or will at least be interested enough to check into it, even if they don’t post.

I hope so…

I hope so to, and some prayers won’t hurt either…

 

[Caramel]

Yes, they do, and it makes sense in a biological way because the animal has put so much energy into the development and birthing of her young that killing and/or eating the young (especially those which are deformed and/or have other birth defects) an animal replaces some of the energy (nutrients) that she lost while going through the processes of pregnancy and birth.

It’s also extremely common for mothers to consume the placenta and it’s for the same reason. It is food.

I know that in humans some people keep the placenta to have its nutrients placed in pill form. In fact, I saw this in one of the older questions asked to an Apologist on this forum and I was directed to a (rather humorous) website. If anyone is interested in this practice they can look for the question under Apologetics or if you want I will find the question and cite the website.

It all makes sense in the “lower” animals because they have to use what they have for food. We, as human beings, would most likely be repulsed to the point of vomiting if we saw a mother procure an abortion and then eat her aborted child. So it breaks down here. Women don’t need to do this because food is readily available and there is a definite taboo against cannibalism.

I apologize for going off-topic. I just wanted to try to make this clear.

 

[Caramel]

(emphasis added)

I agree with you! I respond when people don’t understand why lower animals act the way they do because, well, that is the way they act and I’m sure there are prochoicers who know it. I never want to weaken the prolife position.

When I saw the post you are referring to I just put my head down.

Your final statement is absolutely true!! Thank you for putting it in such a clear way!!

 

[Caramel]

I want to post this to everybody simply as a question. I know this has been discussed before and maybe I’m having problems with understanding it in my own mind.

Can a person who is personally against abortion (prolife) believe that it is still OK for others to choose whether or not to have an abortion (prochoice)? So in their minds they look upon themselves as prolife and when they vote they look upon themselves still as prolife but allowing the pregnant women to make their own choices?

Do they believe, as the bumper sticker says, “Don’t Like Abortion? Then Don’t Have One!”

It must come down to choice. A Catholic may believe that he/she is prolife but still support the choice of others - they should be able to choose for themselves. They have free will which was given to them by God. And who are we to question their motives or their actions?

OK, I know I am rambling here. My question for anyone, especially those who consider themselves “prochoice Catholics”, is the following:

Are you, yourself, personally against abortion (and would never have one) still in agreement with allowing other people to make the choice of abortion for themselves??

 

[Caramel]

Basically, the baby deserves less protection becuase he/she is of less value. That is what you are saying.

That is exactly true. And why is that? Is it because the unborn can’t form lobbies and donate huge amounts of money to lobbyists? Is it because they can’t speak, but only give a silent scream as they are being dismembered and ripped apart and murdered? Bless them, for they have no voice and they have no choice. To some they are a clump of cells, to some they are a cancer, to some they are an inconvenience. They have no power and they have no way of obtaining power.

I’ve seen more anger directed at high-kill animal shelters than at all-kill abortion clinics. The unborn are the most helpless class of human beings in the world. And so many people look upon them as having less value than those “lucky” ones who are allowed to continue development and be born.

Our government is not run by elected officials. It is run by lobbyists through contributions. We don’t live in a democracy anymore. It’s been dead for a long time.

Sorry, off-topic a bit.

 

[Havard]

Our government is not run by elected officials. It is run by lobbyists through contributions. We don’t live in a democracy anymore. It’s been dead for a long time.

Culture needs to change; with it, government will follow. We have the power to change culture!

 

[gakroeger]

Culture needs to change; with it, government will follow. We have the power to change culture!

Yes, we have the power, now we need the will…

 

[Caramel]

Culture needs to change; with it, government will follow. We have the power to change culture!

I hope and pray that you are right. But from what I’ve seen going on around me I just don’t feel much hope. I think that a couple of millenia from now (if humans manage to survive that long on this planet they are killing) others will look on what we have done and be shocked by our insensitivity, our easy acceptance of what is obviously murder, our slaughtering of the most innocent and our inability to stop it. I used to think that nuclear weapons were the scariest things of all but now human beings terrify me even more. It seems that no matter how wrong something is, humans just go on and do it. Slavery, genocide, the Holocaust, torture - and we murder our own children.

Nothing surprises me any more. The cruelty of human beings seems to be infinite.

 

[SteveGC]

Can a person who is personally against abortion (prolife) believe that it is still OK for others to choose whether or not to have an abortion (prochoice)? So in their minds they look upon themselves as prolife and when they vote they look upon themselves still as prolife but allowing the pregnant women to make their own choices?

Hi Christina. The short answer is “no, it is NOT okay”. For the longer version of why, click here.