Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[heathernoel]

If you’ve never been through an abortion, how can you say it’s the right thing to do for ANYBODY? It’s an absolutely horrible experience and to say a woman has the right to it? Really?

Sure, your “little problem” might be taken care of. Then, a few months later, you see a newborn, and you realize that should be you. Years down the road, you see a child that is the same age as yours should be. And it dawns on you that you KILLED a person because you had that right.

Sounds like Christ’s love to me.

 

[Worthy5]

When did the SC find this so-called right to kill babies before the 1970s? The Church certainly claimed the Immaculate Conception before the 1800s

Here is what Justice Blackmun stated " In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."

The Court has no control over when a certain issue may be litigated before it.

 

[Worthy5]

]=fix;5972183]What is oversimplified about supporting the right to life for innocent persons?

Nothing, except that limits on govt power exists.

 

[fix]

Here is what Justice Blackmun stated " In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."

The Court has no control over when a certain issue may be litigated before it.

IOW, they invented it for this case. I got it. There is no right to murder.

 

[fix]

Nothing, except that limits on govt power exists.

Sure, what does that have to do with murder?

 

[fix]

I appreciate this response but do not see where it answers the questions asked about John the Baptist, Matthew 3:8-9, or why the pro-life movement believes God needs them to protect unborn life in view of Matthew 3:8-9.

You have Christ speaking to you through His Church. He said he who hears you hears Me? How is it you cannot reconcile what is so obvious?

 

[estesbob]

Here is what Justice Blackmun stated " In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."

The Court has no control over when a certain issue may be litigated before it.

And this pertains to Church teaching on abortion in what way?

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;5972684]Sure, what does that have to do with murder?

Because the question then follows who has the duty to prevent that murder, if possible and what means should be employed?

 

[gakroeger]

And this pertains to Church teaching on abortion in what way?

The “pro choice” people keep proving they cannot support an legitimate moral argument and MUST keep reverting to legalities in spite of the fact that this thread has been explained over and over it is a debate about the moral issue and Catholic Church teaching which has NOTHING to do with legal issues.

What these “pro choice” Catholics refuse to acknowledge is that Moral (God’s) law is of higher authority then the supreme court or any civil authority. And to further confuse the issue one “pro choice” person claims to be against excessive government police power but continually places government authority over moral authority of Christ’s Church. Makes no sense except if you understand that they are attempting to rationalizing their political views.

 

[Worthy5]

=estesbob;5972775]And this pertains to Church teaching on abortion in what way?

Because apparently, but still have no clear explanation on this, the Church teaches that to be Catholic you must support the use of the secular govt’s police power as the main means to address the abortion problem. So there.

 

[Worthy5]

=gakroeger;5973192]The “pro choice” people keep proving they cannot support an legitimate moral argument and MUST keep reverting to legalities in spite of the fact that this thread has been explained over and over it is a debate about the moral issue and Catholic Church teaching which has NOTHING to do with legal issues.

What these “pro choice” Catholics refuse to acknowledge is that Moral (God’s) law is of higher authority then the supreme court or any civil authority. And to further confuse the issue one “pro choice” person claims to be against excessive government police power but continually places government authority over moral authority of Christ’s Church. Makes no sense except if you understand that they are attempting to rationalizing their political views.

Gakroeger, that is fine, you indicated that you as a poster does not support the use of secular govt’s police power to outlaw all abortions. Does the Church require one to support such a view to be in good standing with the Church?

 

[fix]

Because the question then follows who has the duty to prevent that murder, if possible and what means should be employed?

The state has the duty as the Church, and common sense, tell us.

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;5973452]The state has the duty as the Church, and common sense, tell us.

So the state is now the Church?

 

[fix]

So the state is now the Church?

No, the state has the duty. This is self evident. We can seek further understanding from the Church and quite simply common sense tells us that murder ought to be illegal.

 

[jmcrae]

Because apparently, but still have no clear explanation on this, the Church teaches that to be Catholic you must support the use of the secular govt’s police power as the main means to address the abortion problem. So there.

Actually, what we believe is that we should use every power at our disposal to prevent the outright killing of any innocent person, of any age, even if they are still in the womb, and even if they are lying on their death-bed in extreme old age.

 

[gakroeger]

Gakroeger, that is fine, you indicated that you as a poster does not support the use of secular govt’s police power to outlaw all abortions. Does the Church require one to support such a view to be in good standing with the Church?

Why do you continually twist other posters words to fit what you want them to mean? Never mind answering that, I already know the reason, however, to clarify for other readers. I never said I do not support governments enforcement of all civil laws, I merely stated that that is not the subject of this thread. Regardless of civil law, abortion is against moral law and moral law “should be” the priority for all Catholics.

 

[gakroeger]

Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols has said “We don’t want Cafeteria Catholics”. He is speaking of Anglicans coming into the Catholic Church but this futher clarifies the discussion we are having here with our own “Cafeteria Catholics”.

blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2009/11/22/rc-archbishop-to-anglicans-we-don’t-want-cafeteria-catholics/

 

[Worthy5]

Why do you continually twist other posters words to fit what you want them to mean? Never mind answering that, I already know the reason, however, to clarify for other readers. I never said I do not support governments enforcement of all civil laws, I merely stated that that is not the subject of this thread. Regardless of civil law, abortion is against moral law and moral law “should be” the priority for all Catholics.

Okay, so let us ask again this way, do you or do you not support a secular law against abortion and if so do you believe the Church teaches, as part of the moral law, that one must support such law as the primary means to address the abortion problem, and if one does not, does that mean one cannot, according to the Church, participate in the sacraments?

 

[zamboni]

Should all “Catholics For Choice” not identify themselves as Catholic? If so, then by your standards I should not identify myself as Catholic either. But if it is the sick who need a real Catholic doctor then why is it that very few of the questions I have posted on this thread have been addressed by the ‘real’ Catholics here? Including the Catholic who wrote the above response while quoting yet another unanswered question. Meanwhile, my previous posts, beginning from post #317 on page 22 of this thread, should answer your question about why I call myself Catholic while being pro-choice.

What is oversimplified about supporting the right to life for innocent persons?

Your question is a good example of an oversimplification, because according to it you should support contraception and abortion in order to to remain consistent and true to your stated goal of supporting the right to life of innocent persons. I am referring here, of course, to the countless number of innocent people who die needless and entirely avoidable deaths from sexually transmitted diseases where no contraception is available, and I am referring to the more than 20 million unsafe abortions already occurring in the world wherever access to abortion services is limited or non-existent. A number that would only skyrocket if the oversimplified, contradictory and self-defeating agenda of the pro-life movement were ever to be adopted.

Probably becuase, as with 99% of your posts to this thread, Mathew 3:8-9 has aboslutely no relevance to the teachings of the Church on abortion. As a self identified catholic I would suggest you spend less time reading medical journals and law reviews and more time reading the Cathceism of the Church-the latter will show that one can not reconcile being "pro-choice’ with Catholic Ceachng-the former leads you astray and by your posts may very well lead other Catholics astray.

May I say how odd it seems to be referred back to Catholic Catechism now when my opening posts started there, raising questions that no one has adequately addressed so far, except for Bendaman who seemed to agree with my interpretation of 2270 and 2271, raised beginning from post #317, page 25. Btw, aren’t you the CPA who wanted to start a thread (or have one started) about abortion statistic (estebob @ #396)? Apparently, you’ve had no particular problem with the numbers I have provided so far.

You have Christ speaking to you through His Church. He said he who hears you hears Me? How is it you cannot reconcile what is so obvious?

If you would prefer to discuss Church teaching instead of what scripture says then you could answer my Catechism questions regarding 2270 and 2271, which start from post #317 on page 21.

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, so let us ask again this way, do you or do you not support a secular law against abortion and if so do you believe the Church teaches, as part of the moral law, that one must support such law as the primary means to address the abortion problem, and if one does not, does that mean one cannot, according to the Church, participate in the sacraments?

If you say that it’s okay for other people to have abortions (which is what the “pro-choice” position amounts to) then you cannot receive the Sacraments in the Catholic Church - even if you would never actually have an abortion yourself.

How it comes about that abortions are no longer available is not of material concern to the Church; however, supporting a government that accepts and even promotes abortion is not one of the ways of doing this; therefore, to support such a government goes against Catholic teaching.

It is exactly like the arguments for and against slavery - there were lots of politicians back then who, although they themselves would never keep slaves, thought it would be too much of a hardship for certain kinds of businessmen to be required to conduct their business without using slave labour. Their compassion was not directed to the people who were being held as slaves, but rather, to the businessmen who would be forced to pay wages for day-laborers (and possibly go out of business due to the expense), if he were not permitted to keep slaves.