Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter gakroeger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, so let us get this straight, and this poster briefly scanned the article and letter provided, but it referenced a party’s platform. In order to be a Catholic, you MUST be a Republican–that is what is being said and that because of the " weight" of the abortion issue the Democratic party can never field a candidate that a Catholic can vote---------Okaaaayyyy-----well let us just throw out the two party system yeaaaahhhh.

A one party system, a one party government--------this is great----sounds alot like Stalin’s Soviet Union. 👍:rotfl: 🤷
Actually, you must be pro-life - there are parties other than Republican and Democrat - but you can’t vote for a party whose policies are pro-abortion.
 
Is anyone saying it is? Hello. It is the Church saying that there is only one acceptable person to vote for in any election for any office, otherwise you are not a member of the Church. Is that really what it is saying? Perhaps this is just a few Bishops.

But more to the point, it is one thing for the Church to say that it must be a consideration as ones goes to the booth and that politicians must not support funding or increase services for abortion. But to mandate, that a Catholic MUST support the expansive power of the govt’s police force as the only means, despite the fact other means may actually be more effective at preventing abortion, to address the abortion problem, at all of its stages, otherwise you are not in " good standing" is out of line.

That is NOT an “essential matter of faith and morals”.It is an issue of law. The Church has no rubric of authority or infallibility in matters of civil law.

So try that for debate. 🙂
 
Actually, you must be pro-life - there are parties other than Republican and Democrat - but you can’t vote for a party whose policies are pro-abortion.
Well thanks, but I do not think the green party or whoever is going to win an election anytime soon.
 
Well thanks, but I do not think the green party or whoever is going to win an election anytime soon.
It’s not a horse race; your vote is not a bet.

If every pro-life Christian voted for a “nobody” pro-life party, that “nobody” party would win the election. But the machine has conned you into believing that you have to make the best of a bad lot, and choose which of the two major parties are least bad.
 
It’s not a horse race; your vote is not a bet.
If every pro-life Christian voted for a “nobody” pro-life party, that “nobody” party would win the election. But the machine has conned you into believing that you have to make the best of a bad lot, and choose which of the two major parties are least bad.
A non-answer, the first and most important objection stands. 🙂
 
A non-answer, the first and most important objection stands. 🙂
“Democracy” is when the people vote for the person or party that stands for their beliefs. If no such person or party exists, they put one forward.

It is actually undemocratic to vote for a party that doesn’t actually stand for your beliefs, merely because it isn’t as bad as the other party.

If we were able to break through the lie that you “have to” vote for one of the “big two” and get the word out that you are allowed to vote for anyone you want, both of the “big two” would come crashing down and be displaced by a party that actually stands for actual American values.
It is the Church saying that there is only one acceptable person to vote for in any election for any office
The Church is saying that you may vote for any candidate who is 100% pro-life, who will, if elected, get rid of all abortion of every kind (pills, surgery, etc.) and support the dignity of the human person from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death.
 
gakroeger,

That is an interesting point you make. I would hope that people do not leave the church.

Your comments have made me wonder something, and I am intersted to know your thoughts on this. This is related to bringing parishioners back into the fold - or perhaps further back in line with church teachings. As you noted, there are those who attend Catholic mass who do not necessarily agree 100% with everything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If they do not agree with church teaching on abortion, for instance, would you prefer that they cease attending mass - as they are not in ‘communion’ with the rest of the parishioners? Or would you encourage these people most of all to attend mass, in hopes of becoming enlightened?
Well, obviously, I would prefer that they become fully Catholic and follow all Church teaching. This not being possible; various issues carry different weights; abortion is among the most serious of all issues of Church teaching. If, as you suggest a Catholic does not agree with Church teaching on abortion; as has been stated numerous times here and supported by numerous Church encyclicals, doctrinal documents, canon law, the Catechism, etc. these Catholics should not be presenting themselves for Holy Communion, so in answer to your question, I would like for them to continue to attend Mass and learn the faith but not receive Holy Communion until they are fully in communion with the Church again.

It is interesting to note how culture has affected Catholics since 1973 and even earlier; back in that time frame many Catholics went to Mass but stayed in the pew at communion time because they felt they were or maybe in a state of moral sin, (which is by the way Church teaching, one should only present themselves for Holy Communion when in the state of grace. Receiving the “Body of Christ” while in the state of moral sin is a sacrilege.) in today’s culture mortal sin does not exist in many people’s minds (unfortunately or fortunately it still exists in reality) and they have no fear of receiving Holy Communion because in their seriously lax consciences they are not in a state of moral sin. I am not a theologian and even if I were only God knows the state of their souls; however, they cannot commit a moral sin without knowing what they are doing is a mortal sin, BUT they are also responsible for forming a “correct” conscience by learning their faith. There is no free lunch, you cannot claim ignorance in the light of being constantly bombarded with the truth of Catholic Church teaching and go with your lax conscience scot free, and there will be a judgment day for us all. In the end, God will not have a thread on CAF to debate the issue, even though we are not smart enough to sort out how much guilt we have, God knows and he will let us know; a frightening prospect for us all. We can fool ourselves but not God.

I mention elsewhere on this thread how I believe we evolved to this state of immorality; many Catholics found it too difficult or impossible to follow Church teaching when artificial contraception started to become a socially acceptable form of birth control in the sixties and they fell away from Church teaching at that time. Not only did this event cause these individuals to separate themselves from the Church it also caused society to become more callous about human life which lead to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, increased homosexual activity, increased pornography and an increase in all of the other depravity we see in our culture today. This was accurately predicted by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae”
 
“Democracy” is when the people vote for the person or party that stands for their beliefs. If no such person or party exists, they put one forward.

It is actually undemocratic to vote for a party that doesn’t actually stand for your beliefs, merely because it isn’t as bad as the other party.

If we were able to break through the lie that you “have to” vote for one of the “big two” and get the word out that you are allowed to vote for anyone you want, both of the “big two” would come crashing down and be displaced by a party that actually stands for actual American values.

The Church is saying that you may vote for any candidate who is 100% pro-life, who will, if elected, get rid of all abortion of every kind (pills, surgery, etc.) and support the dignity of the human person from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death.
When you say ‘pills’, what are you referring to? Is it just the RU-486 pills, or birth control pills too? It is a near certainty that any candidate running on platform of outlawing birth control pills will never win an election, or even come remotely close to winning.
 
Well, obviously, I would prefer that they become fully Catholic and follow all Church teaching. This not being possible; various issues carry different weights; abortion is among the most serious of all issues of Church teaching. If, as you suggest a Catholic does not agree with Church teaching on abortion; as has been stated numerous times here and supported by numerous Church encyclicals, doctrinal documents, canon law, the Catechism, etc. these Catholics should not be presenting themselves for Holy Communion, so in answer to your question, I would like for them to continue to attend Mass and learn the faith but not receive Holy Communion until they are fully in communion with the Church again.

It is interesting to note how culture has affected Catholics since 1973 and even earlier; back in that time frame many Catholics went to Mass but stayed in the pew at communion time because they felt they were or maybe in a state of moral sin, (which is by the way Church teaching, one should only present themselves for Holy Communion when in the state of grace. Receiving the “Body of Christ” while in the state of moral sin is a sacrilege.) in today’s culture mortal sin does not exist in many people’s minds (unfortunately or fortunately it still exists in reality) and they have no fear of receiving Holy Communion because in their seriously lax consciences they are not in a state of moral sin. I am not a theologian and even if I were only God knows the state of their souls; however, they cannot commit a moral sin without knowing what they are doing is a mortal sin, BUT they are also responsible for forming a “correct” conscience by learning their faith. There is no free lunch, you cannot claim ignorance in the light of being constantly bombarded with the truth of Catholic Church teaching and go with your lax conscience scot free, and there will be a judgment day for us all. In the end, God will not have a thread on CAF to debate the issue, even though we are not smart enough to sort out how much guilt we have, God knows and he will let us know; a frightening prospect for us all. We can fool ourselves but not God.

I mention elsewhere on this thread how I believe we evolved to this state of immorality; many Catholics found it too difficult or impossible to follow Church teaching when artificial contraception started to become a socially acceptable form of birth control in the sixties and they fell away from Church teaching at that time. Not only did this event cause these individuals to separate themselves from the Church it also caused society to become more callous about human life which lead to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, increased homosexual activity, increased pornography and an increase in all of the other depravity we see in our culture today. This was accurately predicted by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae”
Thanks for your detailed reply. That is my thought as well - that Catholics still attend mass even if they are not in agreement with all church teachings - and hopefully their continued exposure to the Holy Spirit will ultimately have a positive result.
 
=jmcrae;5934432]“Democracy” is when the people vote for the person or party that stands for their beliefs. If no such person or party exists, they put one forward.
It is actually undemocratic to vote for a party that doesn’t actually stand for your beliefs, merely because it isn’t as bad as the other party.
If we were able to break through the lie that you “have to” vote for one of the “big two” and get the word out that you are allowed to vote for anyone you want, both of the “big two” would come crashing down and be displaced by a party that actually stands for actual American values.
Well let us get back to reality. So given the fact power always corrupts, and it is essential to have a two-party system (multi-party systems lead to chaos and no third party has been successful in this country to any real degree) to balance power, then the Church really has taken away a democracy’s ability to regulate itself—brilliant. The Bishops are making fools out of themselves.
The Church is saying that you may vote for any candidate who is 100% pro-life, who will, if elected, get rid of all abortion of every kind (pills, surgery, etc.) and support the dignity of the human person from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death.
Okay, well that certaintly should be a consideration when going to the booth in terms of funding and other regulation of abortion, but does the name Roe mean anything. No elected officials can outlaw abortion. The Supreme Court has settled the issue. Outside of a Constitutional Amendment (very unlikely) outlawing abortion is a non-issue.
 
When you say ‘pills’, what are you referring to? Is it just the RU-486 pills, or birth control pills too? It is a near certainty that any candidate running on platform of outlawing birth control pills will never win an election, or even come remotely close to winning.
If such a candidate existed, no Catholic could use the excuse “But I had to vote for the least pro-abortion candidate, and whaddya know, he supports birth control, what kinya do.” 🤷

If such a candidate existed, all Catholics would be required by Church law to vote for him; there would be no more “conscience exemption” - the “conscience exemption” is only in effect for as long as there is no actual pro-life candidate to vote for.
 
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?
I know you are wanting pro choice people respond, but I am going to respond with a quote from Fr. Corapi, in which believe in very much. You can’t be Catholic and pro-choice, get it right once and for all. For all those who claim to be pro-choice and Catholic I pray for you dearly, especially Nancy Pelosi. Yes you heard me right. I don’t agree with, but I wish her no harm. Even the biggest enemies need our prayers. I don’t wish anyone to hell and pray for those who stray against their own Catholic faith. My only problem is my charity so please pray if I ever come in contact with Mrs. Pelosi or any so called “pro-choice Catholics” that I remain charitable
 
If such a candidate existed, no Catholic could use the excuse “But I had to vote for the least pro-abortion candidate, and whaddya know, he supports birth control, what kinya do.” 🤷

If such a candidate existed, all Catholics would be required by Church law to vote for him; there would be no more “conscience exemption” - the “conscience exemption” is only in effect for as long as there is no actual pro-life candidate to vote for.
I don’t use any excuses when I am voting. Nor would I respond favorably to anyone telling me I was ‘required’ to vote for a specific candidate.
 
Do you have any idea of how it could be proven that an embryo is human from conception? You can’t prove it using biology so I would think that it would shift to a moral or philosophical proof but of course you can’t prove it in those fields, either. Can you? I don’t see how but I’m not clear on philosophy or morality. :confused:

Of course I believe the Catholic Church to be correct in their reasoning but then I’m not a prochoice Catholic. And now I’m not so sure about the Catechism. What exactly is the Catechism? Can a person be Catholic and disagree with statements made in the Catechism? I’ve had mine for only few months and I am wading through it. I read at the beginning that it is a way of explaining Catholic doctrine to everyone (doctrine being faith and morals) and to be a reference. Every word in it is supposed to be true and I accept that.

But the few religious posts that I have personally received have stated that the Bible makes no reference to abortion. I doubt that these posts were from Catholics; I believed them to be from members of Planned Parenthood who had been instructed in how to debunk any prolife argument. Maybe prochoice Catholics grab onto this sort of argument to justify abortion. I don’t know.
Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. Ask any Embryologist. Here’s what we’re talking about:

embryo.soad.umich.edu/

In the late 1960s, after the Sexual Revolution, Catholics like me heard the following: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” No. Catholics dated. Made plans for our future. Got engaged. Had serious discussions with both sides of the potential future families, and then, if all went well, got married. Today? Boy meets girl, hop into the sack and declare each other a couple.

And sex education is a failure. In 1973, when it started in my Catholic High School, till today, what is the fruit of it? One in five people have an STD? People were crying out: Freedom! Freedom from mom, dad, priests, nuns and anybody else who made them feel bad about shacking up and having sex 24/7. The Cafeteria is Closed!

In 1972, I heard women on TV telling the American people: “Abortion is likely the most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make and is between her and her God.” And, “Please, please have mercy on those poor young women dying at the hands of back-alley abortionists. Please!” We Were Told it was to be used ONLY in Cases of Emergency – rape, incest and if the mother’s life was in danger. That was a Lie.

In the case of consensual sex, was the back-alley abortionist involved? We Catholics then heard: “We’re consenting adults. Stay out of our business.” Uh huh. Who is paying for 1 out of 5 people with STDs today?

Wake up my fellow Catholics. The Sexual Revolution was about The Pill and sex with anybody. The formula was – we can have sex without responsibility. It did not work. It is wrong to degrade the sex act to going to the bathroom. On TV, young, attractive people sit across from each other and talk about their sexual encounter the night before as “just sex.” When something like this becomes meaningless it is time to look in the mirror and ask yourself: What am I worth? A few meaningless encounters?

And whose choice is it to have sex? The government? Feminists? No. Individuals. And where is the man? The woman did not get pregnant by herself.

It is time for Catholics to promote “reproductive responsibility,” because today Freedom means I can do whatever I want and get away with it. You are in charge of your body but you should not allow yourself to become pregnant if you can’t handle the responsibility. And men cannot allow themselves to do whatever they want and just walk away. It takes a man to be a husband and father.

Peace,
Ed
 
Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. Ask any Embryologist. Here’s what we’re talking about:

embryo.soad.umich.edu/

The woman did not get pregnant by herself.

It takes a man to be a husband and father.
Thanks for the website addy. It plainly shows that an unborn child is not a “clump of cells” any more than any other human being is at any time in his/her life and adds yet even more scientific evidence that a new human being is formed at conception.

I deleted part of your post because of space problems but I wanted to post the website again and also discuss two statements you made.

"The woman did not get pregnant by herself." So true. So why doesn’t the father have a say in the “choice” of whether his son or daughter is going to be killed or allowed to live? I know that lots of guys desert their girlfriends when they become pregnant or offer to pay for an abortion, but what about the decent men who have maybe made a mistake but want to be a responsible parent? Why don’t they have a choice? The baby doesn’t get a choice. Many times the father doesn’t get a choice. I know the baby is connected to her mother in a very intimate way. But I just can’t see how it can be acceptable to allow her to make the choice to kill her child.

"It takes a man to be a husband and father." Amen to that!! It is very true!!

I remember when I started college (in 1973.) A friend told me that she was so happy about what she called the “sexual revolution” and how it should always be that way and it was time people started to understand that there was nothing wrong with promiscuous sexual behavior. When AIDS started showing up I thought a lot about her and her comments. It’s weird that I even remember her because I didn’t know her well yet I remember her comments.

It’s that slippery slope thing again. We were already slipping down but many people didn’t see it. Lots of people got sick and even more died.
 
Some Catholics today are asking, “How did all this happen?”

In 1968, the Pope had Humanae Vitae published. He said he knew about The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception, and warned men and women that they were going to be more tempted to promiscuous sex and that they would value the love of their life less. This document also warned about the dangers of living a promiscuous lifestyle. But too many Catholics were distracted. The sale of millions of ‘Birth Control’ Pills was at stake.

Send in the hippies. Mom, dad, priests and nuns did not know anything. Don’t trust anyone over 30! And some Catholics out of a sense of misplaced trust believed them. Some started smoking dope and not listening to their parents.

By the 1970s - Adult Bookstores began to appear everywhere. Topless go-go bars. It’s OK! It’s legal !! High-powered lawyers were paid millions of dollars to defend “Free Speech” and “Freedom of Expression.” It’s OK.

As the 70’s wore on, TV began getting more sexually suggestive. It was talking about things that were not allowed in the 1950s and early 1960s. We were told that this was “pushing the envelope.” The full phrase is “pushing the envelope of what people find acceptable.” Which people? Christian people.

There used to be a phrase, “Will it play in Peoria?” This was in reference to a place where some things were banned because they offended public decency.

A comedian named Lenny Bruce was arrested for the language he used. You can now here that same language on TV.

In 1973, Homosexuality was removed by a bunch of gay radicals from the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Head Shops (head meaning Dope Head) began to open, including one in my neighborhood. There were underground newspapers and underground comix. A man named Robert Crumb wrote and drew comix with titles like Zap! and Big A** Comix. They were sexually perverted. National Lampoon was another outlet for his and similar work.

By the 1980s - No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country, after the National Organization for Women scared women to death, telling them they were or would soon be, the victims of the eternal enemy – Men.

Women had to be empowered. They had to be 100% equal. They had to join the Army. Dating was turned into a power struggle. Men were called “male chauvenist pigs.”

Television became meaner and cruder. Sue Ellen of Dallas drinking liquor straight out of the bottle while driving.

Cable TV appears and then you have porn in hotels and motels.

By the 1990s, it’s hard to tell a Christian from a non-Christian, and the continuing assault on the family and morality in media gets worse. Shock jocks on the radio talking about sex, degrading rap songs disrespecting women and glorifying violence, and the internet with porn 24/7.

Church parking lots are almost empty and mall parking lots fill up.

And the whole time, some people are talking about “alternative lifestyles.” Alternative to what? Using illegal drugs, fornication, swinging, immersion in movies where boy meets girl and they fornicate?

Wake up my fellow Catholics. The only freedom desired during the ‘Sexual Revolution’ was freedom from God and His commandments.

Peace,
Ed
 
Some Catholics today are asking, “How did all this happen?”

In 1968, the Pope had Humanae Vitae published. He said he knew about The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception, and warned men and women that they were going to be more tempted to promiscuous sex and that they would value the love of their life less. This document also warned about the dangers of living a promiscuous lifestyle. But too many Catholics were distracted. The sale of millions of ‘Birth Control’ Pills was at stake.

Send in the hippies. Mom, dad, priests and nuns did not know anything. Don’t trust anyone over 30! And some Catholics out of a sense of misplaced trust believed them. Some started smoking dope and not listening to their parents.

By the 1970s - Adult Bookstores began to appear everywhere. Topless go-go bars. It’s OK! It’s legal !! High-powered lawyers were paid millions of dollars to defend “Free Speech” and “Freedom of Expression.” It’s OK.

As the 70’s wore on, TV began getting more sexually suggestive. It was talking about things that were not allowed in the 1950s and early 1960s. We were told that this was “pushing the envelope.” The full phrase is “pushing the envelope of what people find acceptable.” Which people? Christian people.

There used to be a phrase, “Will it play in Peoria?” This was in reference to a place where some things were banned because they offended public decency.

A comedian named Lenny Bruce was arrested for the language he used. You can now here that same language on TV.

In 1973, Homosexuality was removed by a bunch of gay radicals from the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Head Shops (head meaning Dope Head) began to open, including one in my neighborhood. There were underground newspapers and underground comix. A man named Robert Crumb wrote and drew comix with titles like Zap! and Big A** Comix. They were sexually perverted. National Lampoon was another outlet for his and similar work.

By the 1980s - No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country, after the National Organization for Women scared women to death, telling them they were or would soon be, the victims of the eternal enemy – Men.

Women had to be empowered. They had to be 100% equal. They had to join the Army. Dating was turned into a power struggle. Men were called “male chauvenist pigs.”

Television became meaner and cruder. Sue Ellen of Dallas drinking liquor straight out of the bottle while driving.

Cable TV appears and then you have porn in hotels and motels.

By the 1990s, it’s hard to tell a Christian from a non-Christian, and the continuing assault on the family and morality in media gets worse. Shock jocks on the radio talking about sex, degrading rap songs disrespecting women and glorifying violence, and the internet with porn 24/7.

Church parking lots are almost empty and mall parking lots fill up.

And the whole time, some people are talking about “alternative lifestyles.” Alternative to what? Using illegal drugs, fornication, swinging, immersion in movies where boy meets girl and they fornicate?

Wake up my fellow Catholics. The only freedom desired during the ‘Sexual Revolution’ was freedom from God and His commandments.

Peace,
Ed
Ed, thanks for expanding on my point. The truth is hard to deny, but there are those who will try.

Todays Gospel is very appropriate;

Gospel
Lk 17:26-37

Jesus said to his disciples:
“As it was in the days of Noah,
so it will be in the days of the Son of Man;
they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage up to the day
that Noah entered the ark,
and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot:
they were eating, drinking, buying,
selling, planting, building;
on the day when Lot left Sodom,
fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all.
So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
On that day, someone who is on the housetop
and whose belongings are in the house
must not go down to get them,
and likewise one in the field
must not return to what was left behind.
Remember the wife of Lot.
Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it,
but whoever loses it will save it.
I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed;
one will be taken, the other left.
And there will be two women grinding meal together;
one will be taken, the other left.”
They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?”
He said to them, “Where the body is,
there also the vultures will gather.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top