Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Caramel]

What I find in 2271 is that “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.”

It makes sense to me that if men were to accept this responsibility before contraception needs develop, obviously there would then be a lot less need to debate whether contraception and abortion services should be legally available.

Please, what do you mean by “if men were to accept this responsbility before contraception needs develop?” I think we might actually agree here.

It seems clear that men have the power to turn the abortion issue around on a dime, or at least make the biggest dent in the problem, just by accepting 2271 responsibility from he moment of conception… which I understand to mean before or no later than during sex, or at least not after it becomes too late to make a “worthy” decision. Otherwise, what does the responsibility of men consist of? Are we just supposed to prevent women who are living in unsafeguarded conditions from being able to legally choose abortion, and then go play golf?

When is “after it becomes too late to make a “worthy” decision?” What is a “worthy” decision?

What do you mean by “women who are living in unsafeguarded conditions?” This is where I think we part ways; could you be a bit more specific?

Thanks!

 

[Benadam]

I have to disagree with you on the meaning of “men” in 2271. 355 states the following:

"God created man in his(sic) own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is in the “image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I believe that the word “man” refers to both male and female and the word “men” refers to both males and females.

Sorry, this is a bit off-topic. It would be interesting to start a thread on this subject. I brought it up because I disagree that it is only male humans’ task to make the world a safe place. It is the duty of both men and women.

I think both ways of reading it are correct. One doesn’t violate the other. There are two powers at work for reproduction to happen. The generative and passive powers. The generative power gives and the passive recieves. This in my opinion originates in the Trinity. The Father generates the Son recieves and the Holy Spirit proceeds. I’ll leave it at that as to why 2271 can be a call to men specifically but not exclusively.

 

[Caramel]

I think both ways of reading it are correct. One doesn’t violate the other. There are two powers at work for reproduction to happen. The generative and passive powers. The generative power gives and the passive recieves. This in my opinion originates in the Trinity. The Father generates the Son recieves and the Holy Spirit proceeds. I’ll leave it at that as to why 2271 can be a call to men specifically but not exclusively.

I’ll agree with you but maybe we’ll come across it in another thread. I know this isn’t really on-topic, but then it seems difficult to keep threads on-topic.

God bless you!!

Christina

 

[Caramel]

you cannot be pro-choice and catholic. to many cafeteria catholics today. it’s hard but that is reality. wish it was easier but it isn’t. we all will account for our beliefs in the end. i only hope that i can live up to God’s expectations for a measly human being that’s trying.

It seems to me that you are doing a good job; at least you understand that a person can’t really be prochoice and really be a Catholic at the same time.

God Bless you!!

Christina

 

[Benadam]

I’ll agree with you but maybe we’ll come across it in another thread. I know this isn’t really on-topic, but then it seems difficult to keep threads on-topic.

God bless you!!

Christina

Thank you. That would be nice

Zamboni has enlightened me somewhat. A ‘pro-choice’ Catholic perspctive presumes that the world is slowly coming around. Or, they see their role is like a parent being an example, allowing a child to make their own mistakes. When those mistakes have dug a deep eneogh hole the child will reach up for their hand to pull them out. Maybe they are afraid that an abortion law will astrange the Church and make it less effective. Either way the reasoning is based on fear of the future.

None of these reasons can justify not protecting life being lost in the here and now of course.

 

[Caramel]

I have no desire to be at odds with central Church teaching, I just don’t expect garden perfection in a fallen world. I expect an uphill battle, like Vimy Ridge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimy_ridge

Please, Zamboni, explain what the Battle of Vimy Ridge has to do with the reconciliation of prochoice Catholics with Church teaching. And what is “garden perfection?”

 

[Caramel]

Thank you. That would be nice

Zamboni has enlightened me somewhat. A ‘pro-choice’ Catholic perspctive presumes that the world is slowly coming around. Or, they see their role is like a parent being an example, allowing a child to make their own mistakes. When those mistakes have dug a deep eneogh hole the child will reach up for their hand to pull them out. Maybe they are afraid that an abortion law will astrange the Church and make it less effective. Either way the reasoning is based on fear of the future.

None of these reasons can justify not protecting life being lost in the here and now of course.

I think you are right. It is very difficult for me to follow Zamboni’s reasoning (that’s weird; I first typed “treasoning” - maybe a Freudian slip) when he uses terms that I have never ever run across before. He accused me of calling him the “OK Simpson of abortion” which I think means “OJ Simpson of abortion” and still makes no sense. Or maybe he is referring to “The Simpsons” tv show, which is what I thought when I first saw it. Why would I accuse him of something using a term that I have never come across before??

I’m very glad you have managed to muddle through his posts to try to make sense out of them. I have failed. It is just too bizarre to think that it’s OK now to allow abortion and maybe in the future people will “wise up” and decided that abortion is now all of a sudden not OK and then prochoicers will suddenly become prolifers.

And all that will occur with no protection for the unborn now. What I have been attempting to ask him is how can an “unsafe world” change to a “safe world” when prochoicers are now saying it’s OK to kill the unborn? I think that is a fair question. If people want the world to change to a safer world, they should be prolife, not prochoice, and vote as prolifers. Otherwise no change will come.

Maybe “prochoice Catholics” put their heads in the ground and pretend that if they can’t see it it will go away.

Absolutely clinically bizarre thinking…

 

[zamboni]

It is very difficult for me to follow Zamboni’s reasoning… He accused me of calling him the “OK Simpson of abortion” which I think means “OJ Simpson of abortion” and still makes no sense. Why would I accuse him of something using a term that I have never come across before??

Yes, “OK” = OJ, not Bart or Homer Simpsons. It was in your post #386 on page 26 that you said I “believe it is OK to kill the unborn,” but I think people choose abortion as a lesser of two evils, not because anyone thinks it’s OK.

It is just too bizarre to think that it’s OK to allow abortion and maybe in the future people will “wise up” and decided that abortion is now all of a sudden not OK and then prochoicers will suddenly become prolifers.

And all that will occur with no protection for the unborn now. What I have been attempting to ask him is how can an “unsafe world” change to a “safe world” when prochoicers are now saying it’s OK to kill the unborn? I think that is a fair question. If people want the world to change to a safer world, they should be prolife, not prochoice, and vote as prolifers. Otherwise no change will come.

Maybe “prochoice Catholics” put their heads in the ground and pretend that if they can’t see it it will go away.

Absolutely clinically bizarre thinking…

I believe OJ Simpson was often called things like “clinically bizarre,” which may have been true of him, but which I hope helps you see why the way you talk about pro-choice people makes it sound like you think we are all like OJ Simpson murderers with no conscience. It also sounds like you may think abortion is the only issue that has a bearing on world safety. As I am sure you must know, people choose abortions for a wide range of reasons like poverty, famine, war, volatile domestic situations, maternal death risk, etc. Apparently, just trying to make abortion illegal will solve nothing, so why not work on a solution? I am convinced that you agree with me that abortions should stop, so why not help stop?

Some links that might be of interest…

Does making abortion illegal stop it from occurring?
*No. Abortion rates are much less related to legal status than they are to levels of unintended pregnancy. In many countries in which abortion is illegal but unintended pregnancy is widespread—for example, Chile, Peru, Nigeria and the Philippines—the abortion rate is higher than in the United States. Some of the world’s lowest abortion rates are in Western European countries, where abortion is legal and covered by national health insurance systems, but where levels of unintended pregnancy are very low. *
guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

20 million unsafe abortions each year
*Sharon L. Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual and reproductive health, said at a news conference in London. “Legal restrictions do not stop abortion from happening; they just make the procedure dangerous.” *
nytimes.com/2009/10/14/health/14briefs-abortionbf.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Homicide One of Leading Causes of Injury-Related Death Among Pregnant Women, New Mothers
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php

**529,000 maternal deaths each year **
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166526.php

Half of all American pregnancies are unintended
guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

 

[zamboni]

Violent individuals do not represent the Pro-life movement any more than the Unabomber represents the environmental movement. Our activism is peaceful.

I appreciate your response to the article about the abortion doctor killer. It should go without saying that violence is not an answer to abortion, and I assume all Catholics agree with that. You posted the response I was looking for and I see no disputes from others, so my question has been answered as far as I am concerned.

Thank you.

 

[zamboni]

So , in your opinion, the right to life is dependent on a “safe” world? What other rights do you beleive are dependent on society measuring up to your strandars?

Since you list yourself as Catholic how do you reconcile your view with the teachings of our Church?

To answer your questions, allow me to refer you to the links I provided in post #420, page 28. If the info provided there does not answer your questions sufficiently, please follow up with me.

 

[gakroeger]

The “pro choice” crowd continue to drag this discussion away from morality and back to legality because that is the only area where they feel they have a chance at rationalizing their position.

This article blows holes in most of the legal arguments.

 

[estesbob]

To answer your questions, allow me to refer you to the links I provided in post #420, page 28. If the info provided there does not answer your questions sufficiently, please follow up with me.

None of which have anything whatsoever to do with the morality of abortion or the clear teachings of the Church. You simpy can not reconcile being pro-abortion with the teachings if the Catholic Church.

 

[estesbob]

In fact many of the "facts " in these links are not facts at all and have been refuted ad naseum in CAF and elsewhere-but again none are germane to this discussion.

 

[Worthy5]

The “pro choice” crowd continue to drag this discussion away from morality and back to legality because that is the only area where they feel they have a chance at rationalizing their position.

This article blows holes in most of the legal arguments

Not really their strongest argument though, as the Court indicated in Roe:

" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "

 

[Caramel]

Not really their strongest argument though, as the Court indicated in Roe:

" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "

Worthy, I know you realize that it was a highly divided court. IMO they made a mistake. They erred. They ignored Truth. Fortunately for all the murdered children (and for you and me) there is a much higher authority than the Supreme Court of this piddly country that has only been in existence for about 230 years. God has been around forever, so I think I will place my trust in Him, not in a Supreme Court where the members can’t even agree unanimously.

 

[SteveGC]

Some links that might be of interest…

Does making abortion illegal stop it from occurring?
*No. Abortion rates are much less related to legal status than they are to levels of unintended pregnancy. In many countries in which abortion is illegal but unintended pregnancy is widespread—for example, Chile, Peru, Nigeria and the Philippines—the abortion rate is higher than in the United States. Some of the world’s lowest abortion rates are in Western European countries, where abortion is legal and covered by national health insurance systems, but where levels of unintended pregnancy are very low. *
guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

20 million unsafe abortions each year
*Sharon L. Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual and reproductive health, said at a news conference in London. “Legal restrictions do not stop abortion from happening; they just make the procedure dangerous.” *
nytimes.com/2009/10/14/health/14briefs-abortionbf.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Homicide One of Leading Causes of Injury-Related Death Among Pregnant Women, New Mothers
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php

**529,000 maternal deaths each year **
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166526.php

Half of all American pregnancies are unintended
guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

I don’t think any prolifer denies the absolute necessity to help educate and “moralize” society, and that abortions would not cease if they are made illegal. But I believe these comparisons are apples and oranges. They rightly identify unintended pregnancies as the principle cause of abortions, but then falsely merge that fact with the legality issue, and seek to conclude that making them illegal will do nothing to help the problem. Yes, the lack of desire to be pregnant is the primary catalyst for abortions, no argument from me there. But the inference is that making U.S. abortion illegal will either do nothing to help, or it will in fact serve to bring the abortion rate up to levels on par with these other countries where abortion is illegal.

Nonsense!

Flip it around…if these other countries legalize abortion, would the abortion rate go down? If you can’t see that the obvious answer is a resounding “no”, and in fact that abortions would likely increase, then you are duped by these cleverly worded analyses and substandard comparisons.

And by the way, here’s a little news flash for pro-choice Catholics that find encouragement in some of these statistical reports about a declining abortion rate…contraception is** not **an acceptable means to reduce this genocide - alot of these reports seek to instill encouragement for the direction the U.S. is heading with it’s supposed abortion rate decline, but it champions contraception as the catalyst for this success. Unacceptable. What is needed is robust, on-going education and spirtual/moral formation focusing primarily on our next generations…AND immediate illegalization. We need both of these things…not just one of them. It’s gotten far too out of hand.

 

[zamboni]

The “pro choice” crowd continue to drag this discussion away from morality and back to legality because that is the only area where they feel they have a chance at rationalizing their position.

This article blows holes in most of the legal arguments.

I do not see any legal issues raised in your document. It mentions Roe v Wade often but otherwise only questions the accuracy of abortion statistics before and after Roe v Wade. I don’t think public opinion polls can be entered as evidence in courtrooms either, but I’m just guessing about that.

 

[heathernoel]

There is no reconciliation. They are NOT Catholics in good standing.

That’s not a judgment. That is a fact.

Signed,
Norma’s sister in sin and repentance.

 

[estesbob]

I do not see any legal issues raised in your document. It mentions Roe v Wade often but otherwise only questions the accuracy of abortion statistics before and after Roe v Wade. I don’t think public opinion polls can be entered as evidence in courtrooms either, but I’m just guessing about that.

I do not see how legal issues have anything to do with Church teaching on abortion.

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy, I know you realize that it was a highly divided court. IMO they made a mistake. They erred. They ignored Truth. Fortunately for all the murdered children (and for you and me) there is a much higher authority than the Supreme Court of this piddly country that has only been in existence for about 230 years. God has been around forever, so I think I will place my trust in Him, not in a Supreme Court where the members can’t even agree unanimously.

Well it was a 7 to 2 decision, that really is not that divided of a Court. Granted the Casey case in 1992 was decided only with a plurality but the core holding of Roe was upheld. Again, the Court decided an issue of law, not an issue of morality.