Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Caramel]

And an individual Catholics subjective analysis and alleged scientific method can NEVER trump the teachings of the Church. Never. Which is why, to get this thread back on topic, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile being “pro-choice” with Church teaching

Agreed. And also, scientific evidence should not be able to trump Church teachings. Like I have said over and over, in science you cannot prove anything!! However, I believe that one can discover Truth by using the teachings of the Church and not even looking at scientific evidence. Also, one can discover Truth by using Church teachings and scientific evidence, and it is also possible to discover Truth simply by using scientific evidence, but that is a difficult road to take. I know, because I was on that road for a long time!!

Scientific data are data - there is always a chance that they occurred because of chance.
TRUTH is truth is truth - it is unchanging and there is no possibility of it being formed by chance!!

 

[Caramel]

Caramel, people do not come to this forum " to be happy" or not. The forum is meant for the discussion of ideas and to better understand the faith.

OK, then, why don’t you start your own thread and then you will be the OP and the posters can respond within the parameters of your OP? If you disagree with the OP here (and you have), why not start your own thread and be the OP?

It’s easy to do and then you could check the posts yourself as the OP.

 

[gakroeger]

I’ve heard others say that the term “anti-abortion” is pejorative, but I think it is more descriptive and therefore more honest as a description for the majority of those who identify themselves as pro-life.

Anti abortion covers only one aspect of pro life. Pro life means respect for all human life at all stages and conditions including the handicapped, mentally impaired, terminally ill, the weak, the strong, the stupid, the smart, the old, the young, all races, all creeds, and even the “pro choice” in addition to the unborn.

 

[Worthy5]

OK, then, why don’t you start your own thread and then you will be the OP and the posters can respond within the parameters of your OP? If you disagree with the OP here (and you have), why not start your own thread and be the OP?

It’s easy to do and then you could check the posts yourself as the OP.

Perhaps, but is that really needed. The debate is here, why start another thread? For the OP to seal off debate after he stated " I would welcome lengthy debate on this issue." seems a contradiction.

He/she wants to know why certain Catholics may be " Pro-choice" but yet when the answers come and he/she gets an answer he/she does not like then the discussion of that is ended.

So what do you guys hope to achieve here, an echo chamber.

 

[jmcrae]

When he said “we” I believe he was speaking for the other African prelates at Church leadership meeting, not the laity who are obviously free to do many things the Church itself is not free to do. Unless the laity believes it is the Church itself now? Is everyone a Cardinal or Bishop in their own mind these days? If so, the Church may well have too many chiefs and not enough indians to operate as a functional tribe for much longer.

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

Lay people are supposed to get married, have children, and bring them up in the Catholic faith, which is the only they do that is different than what members of the clergy do. Catholic parents are still supposed to teach their children according to what the Church teaches, and they are still supposed to live according to Church teachings.

All - both clergy and lay - are supposed to evangelize. All are supposed to uphold Church law with regard to abortion, contraception, the Precepts of the Church (each in his or her own role, of course) - there would be no Catholic who would be permitted to go around handing out condoms, or directing pregnant girls to abortion clinics.

 

[Caramel]

Anti abortion covers only one aspect of pro life. Pro life means respect for all human life at all stages and conditions including the handicapped, mentally impaired, terminally ill, the weak, the strong, the stupid, the smart, the old, the young, all races, all creeds, and even the “pro choice” in addition to the unborn.

And that is why prolifers such as myself are saddened by the murder of an abortion provider. What I think prolifers are trying to say is that it is not up to us to decide whether or not anybody has the “necessary qualifications” to be allowed to live. It is wrong for a person who calls himself “prolife” to go out and murder a physician who provides abortions, just as it is wrong for that physician to provide abortions.

Each and every human being is created by God, through God’s love, and when someone takes away that life, they are taking away a gift provided by God’s love. Murder of anyone, whether it be an unborn child; a man who thinks that he is saving lives by murdering an abortion provider; an inmate on death row. It is all wrong. It’s like people are thumbing their noses at God.

 

[gakroeger]

It is clear to everyone on this thread deep in their hearts, but some remain in that river in Egypt “Denial”… Why, because it would mean major changes in their lives which they are not willing to undertake YET?

The whining about limiting the debate to church teaching and eliminating all of the rationalization issues that the “pro choice” Catholics have been using only proves that they cannot (which we knew going in and was the reason for barring extraneous subjects) reconcile their “pro choice” position with Church teaching. Now the only thing remaining is for them to realize and accept it.

They have to realize that to use legalities to reconcile their “pro choice” position is to place more value on civil law than on moral law and Church teaching.

 

[Caramel]

If so, the Church may well have too many chiefs and not enough indians to operate as a functional tribe for much longer.

Zamboni, may I please ask you, in all sincerity, to stop calling Native Americans
“indians.” At the very least, please capitalize the first “I”.

Thank you.

 

[Caramel]

Perhaps, but is that really needed.

Yes, I think that is what is really needed.

 

[jmcrae]

That “film” is extremely misleading - let’s look at some of the facts about pain in a 12 week old fetus and some of the “claims” that are made on that film:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus

We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

Nor do we know that they don’t. That “string” that appears in the first day after conception is the spinal cord, which is the basis of the human nervous system.

CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

 

[gakroeger]

Is everyone a Cardinal or Bishop in their own mind these days? If so, the Church may well have too many chiefs and not enough indians to operate as a functional tribe for much longer.

Yeah, thats a safe bet, the ONLY organization that sticks to truth no matter what and to survive the last 2000 years is doomed because of one lonely dissenter with a life span of 80 years on a CAF forum in 2009 thinks so. My money in on Christ’s Church.

 

[Worthy5]

It is clear to everyone on this thread deep in their hearts, but some remain in that river in Egypt “Denial”… Why, because it would mean major changes in their lives which they are not willing to undertake YET?

Really, and how do you know how anyone on this forum is living their life. At no time, has this poster indicated that abortion was an acceptable choice morally for an individual to make.

The whining about limiting the debate to church teaching and eliminating all of the rationalization issues that the “pro choice” Catholics have been using only proves that they cannot (which we knew going in and was the reason for barring extraneous subjects) reconcile their “pro choice” position with Church teaching. Now the only thing remaining is for them to realize and accept it

 

[Worthy5]

Yes, I think that is what is really needed.

Now, Caramel, this poster would have thought you did not want an echo chamber on here. But since this poster likes you, this poster will obey your request. :flowers:

kpeople:

Okay people, this poster has retired. (for now ) :choocho:

 

[estesbob]

No it is not, it is recognizing the distinction between the two–and the different roles they play. And as a champion of the moral law (nothing wrong with that) you need to provide justification on why the civil law’s police power is the most preferred way in any given situation to achieve the end the moral law is arguing for.

 

[Caramel]

This is the truth that I hoped would be realized by “pro choice” Catholics who visit this thread, I have been amazed at the extent some are willing to rationalize such clear teaching in their attempts to justify their political views.

It all goes back to your question;

"Does your (properly formed by Church teaching) conscience form your political views or does your political views form your ( improperly formed) conscience.

To be honest, when I joined these forums I didn’t think there was such a thing as a “Cafeteria Catholic.” I thought that Catholics believed in what the Church taught. Now I didn’t believe in everything the Church taught and I used to play these little games - like asking a priest if it wasn’t enough to just follow the two Commandments that Jesus gave - wouldn’t that get a person into Heaven?

I tried this out on a few priests and they hemmed and hawed and finally said, “Well, yeah…but…” That is where I stopped my questioning because a Catholic priest had “agreed” with me. I wasn’t interested in learning anything beyond that. So I would leave and smile and pat myself on the back, thinking I was just so so smart.

That is until I met a Carmelite monk, and he made it clear that he would tell me everything he could. He told me the truth - that there is so much more than just that tiny little bit of information taken from the Bible. He didn’t say that the Two Commandments given by Christ were wrong, or that they weren’t important; in fact, he said they were extremely important. But there was so much more to the Catholic Church and to being a Catholic. This monk would not let me leave until I heard him out. I don’t mean he tied me to a chair and gagged me; I mean he would not discuss only that part of the Bible. That day I realized that there is so much to learn that I would be spending the rest of my life (and perhaps beyond) just learning. The monk didn’t fall for my b.s.

That day I went to the little chapel in the Monastery and I prayed. I really prayed, probably for the first time in my life. That is when I gave my life to God and vowed that I would do whatever I could to be a good Christian and beyond that, a good Catholic.

Before this, when any one asked me what my faith was, I would say “I’m Catholic”; not because I was proud of it or was happy that I was a member of the Church that was founded by Christ, but because it was another little game that I played. It provoked controversy and I liked that.

Looking back I can’t believe how utterly stupid I was.

I was the worst kind of “Cafeteria Catholic.” Sure, I had been baptized and had even received The Sacrament of the Sick. I had had my First Communion, and I had been Confirmed; not that I knew what any of that meant. I picked and chose whatever I wanted. Nothing was spared. If I didn’t believe what the Catholic Church taught, especially about contraception, well I was right and the Church was wrong. Period. No room for debate and no room for discussion.

Now I understand that one cannot possibly be a “practicing Cafeteria Catholic.” It doesn’t work that way. Either you follow the Church teachings or you don’t. I didn’t.

Now I do and I feel so much better about myself because I don’t have to play those stupid little games anymore. Now I can be honest and now I understand why contraception is wrong.

Of course I’m still sinning and making errors and all that. I don’t pretend to know what the Church teaches about a lot of things. But I know I can find the answers in the CCC or I can ask a priest, or I can pray.

I now accept Church teaching as a whole. There are an awful lot of people, much more intelligent than me, who have spent their lives writing and translating and praying about the Truth. I defer to their judgment.

 

[SteveGC]

Gakroeger, if I may…

seems like the biggest arguments that Catholic pro-choicers have is that there is no teaching that tells them :

1. that they cannot vote for a candidate who is not going to make abortion illegal or who is going to federally fund abortion, so long as they are not voting for that candidate based on that position on abortion.
2. that they cannot lobby to keep abortion legal for the precise reason of limiting government power

or

1. that they cannot lobby to keep abortion legal for the precise reason of keeping the abortion decision private

So, while they themselves don’t believe in abortion, would never have one, never encourage another to have one, and would even discourage it, they reconcile their pro-choice stance based on the above concepts. …and frankly…so far, we’re not really providing for them much in the way of clear teaching that refutes these arguments.

So, it occured to me that we should lay out the Church teaching which reveals that these 3 excuses are not valid reasons to be pro-choice, and invite pro-choice Catholics to reflect and comment on these teachings and perhaps allow them to argue how their pro-choice position does not conflict with these teachings.

For starters, two Catechism paragraphs of the 9 you originally posted seem to be somewhat relevant, so I will take the liberty of listing them out here. It’s perhaps useful to point to any other Church documents which are further referenced within a teaching, so I will say that these two paragraphs from the Catechism point to the 1987 Donum Vitae, which can be read here. Feel free to offer more definitive Church teaching which addresses, and more importantly, refutes, the arguments listed above.

CCC 2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

CCC 2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.

Can we invite our pro-choice Catholic brethren to give us their take on these teachings and how they are specifically reconciled with their pro-choice stance?

 

[zamboni]

And an individual Catholics subjective analysis and alleged scientific method can NEVER trump the teachings of the Church. Never. Which is why, to get this thread back on topic, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile being “pro-choice” with Church teaching

I think this is covered by “Thou shalt not lie,” but the vast majority of responses I see in this thread, which estebob’s above quoted response is typical of, makes me think there should be an eleventh commandment that says “Thou shalt not play Monday morning quarterback with conception issues.”

Same original commandment should also cover putting words into other people’s mouths which they are not saying, estebob.

… … …

"Does your (properly formed by Church teaching) conscience form your political views or does your political views form your ( improperly formed) conscience.

I am still waiting to find out how your Catholic conscience permits you, gakroeger, to open a thread on abortion in which the OP is not just unwilling to discuss whole subject (such as those long-lost questions of mine about the pre-conception responsibilities of men, as per 2270 and 2271 Catechism), but who also — along with the majority of others here — seems to grow impatient when few others merely begin to discuss abortion as though we were in a real discussion forum and not a Roman Colliseum set up for anti-intellectual anti-choicers to gang up on unsuspecting pro-choicers who are honestly searching for solutions and not just a place to play a useless role in a never-ending, circular, intellectually dishonest and chronically misrepresentative debate.

… … …

I get the feeling that you expect me to criticize research whose authors state that it lends credence to the “prochoice” viewpoint, while ignoring research whose authors state that it lends credence to the “prolife” viewpoint.

I get the feeling that you, like others here, must perceive a dire need to put words in my mouth that I am not actually saying, which appears to be the most widely preferred method to dismiss that which is really being said and asked.

I don’t believe I ever said that anything should be thrown out. Where did I state that?

You know where to find your original comments and I say they leave little if any room for doubt that you either expect the study findings to be overturned by others or that you expect to do it yourself, somehow.

“…scientific evidence should not be able to trump Church teachings.”

Here again you are putting words in my mouth, this time echoing some words originally placed there by CPA estebob, who, incidentally, is failing my audit of his words with flying colors.

This seems like an appropriate moment as any to say that the majority of viewpoints expressed in this thread appear to reflect a much weaker working knowledge of and respect for scientific method than the Catholic Church leadership itself shows, not to mention the direct participation of the Church in science research and other proactive Church support for advanced scientific research and endeavour, especially in the field of astronomy as of late. The anti-choicers speaking up in this thread sound more like Evangelical Protestants than like the Catholics.

Zamboni, may I please ask you, in all sincerity, to stop calling Native Americans “indians.” At the very least, please capitalize the first “I”.Thank you.

Caramel, may I please ask you not to condescend to improve my vocabulary when you do not take the time to read my words carefully enough to offer that kind of advice. Once again, you have leaped to an erroneous conclusion without carefully looking, this time concluding that I was referring to Native American Indians. Did you know that indians are also native to Canada and that many more countries around the world have indigenous peoples they call indians? And since you are the same North-American-centric person who wanted to exclude African death-toll numbers from this discussion (or just wanted to call it playing data games to count Africans), I find this latest attempt of yours to find fault in my words to be very disingenuous at this late stage in a discussion which should have reached a mature and progressive starting point of some kind long before now.

… … …

Perhaps, but is that really needed. The debate is here, why start another thread? For the OP to seal off debate after he stated " I would welcome lengthy debate on this issue." seems a contradiction.

He/she wants to know why certain Catholics may be " Pro-choice" but yet when the answers come and he/she gets an answer he/she does not like then the discussion of that is ended.

So what do you guys hope to achieve here, an echo chamber.

I am only quoting the above to thank Worthy5 for this members participation and what I see as useful and much needed help in this thread.

 

[gakroeger]

… …
I am still waiting to find out how your Catholic conscience permits you, gakroeger, to open a thread on abortion in which the OP is not just unwilling to discuss whole subject (such as those long-lost questions of mine about the pre-conception responsibilities of men, as per 2270 and 2271 Catechism), but who also — along with the majority of others here — seems to grow impatient when few others merely begin to discuss abortion as though we were in a real discussion forum and not a Roman Colliseum set up for anti-intellectual anti-choicers to gang up on unsuspecting pro-choicers who are honestly searching for solutions and not just a place to play a useless role in a never-ending, circular, intellectually dishonest and chronically misrepresentative debate.

This post truly shows your complete lack of understanding about how a proper conscience if formed. Our consciences as stated over and over here are to be formed by Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching very clearly states that abortion is intrinsically evil in and of its self, it does not say we should check civil law to see what it says. It further states that to support an intrinsic evil is a serious sin. As long as “pro choice” Catholics refuse to accept this basic truth they are at serious odds with the Church they claim to be a part of.

Your long lost questions were answered and dismissed way back where they were posted. You cannot in any form of honesty what so ever pull and isolate one sentence from a whole paragraph in the catechism and then proceed to put your own out of left field spin on that one sentence and expect anyone of moderate intelligence to place any value on it.

Your comment about anti-intellectual anti-choice people does not make you intellectual or pro life people anti intellectual, it makes you sound like an elitist.

 

[Caramel]

You know where to find your original comments and I say they leave little if any room for doubt that you either expect the study findings to be overturned by others or that you expect to do it yourself, somehow.

Uh, no I don’t know where to find something I never said.

Caramel, may I please ask you not to condescend to improve my vocabulary when you do not take the time to read my words carefully enough to offer that kind of advice. Once again, you have leaped to an erroneous conclusion without carefully looking, this time concluding that I was referring to Native American Indians. Did you know that indians are also native to Canada and that many more countries around the world have indigenous peoples they call indians? And since you are the same North-American-centric person who wanted to exclude African death-toll numbers from this discussion (or just wanted to call it playing data games to count Africans), I find this latest attempt of yours to find fault in my words to be very disingenuous at this late stage in a discussion which should have reached a mature and progressive starting point of some kind long before now.

Proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized. It is also a sign of respect to a group of people. I am not trying to be condescending. When you use the word “indian” you very well may be referring to various groups in both North America and South America. The term “Native American” applies to both. I am not aware of any other groups, even in India, that use the term “chiefs” as was shown in your comment about “indians” and “chiefs.” I asked you kindly but if you don’t want to show respect for Indians, go right ahead and use “indians.” However, it shows little respect for natives of North and South America who were here before Europeans showed up. I am part Native American myself and I feel that you were insulting both myself and my ancestors.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you state “just wanted to call it playing data games to count Africans.” Would you please restate your comment because I am very confused. Is that a quote from a post I wrote? I don’t remember writing anything like that. Would you please provide the post number?

 

[gakroeger]

I am still waiting to find out how your Catholic conscience permits you, gakroeger, to open a thread on abortion in which the OP is not just unwilling to discuss whole subject (such as those long-lost questions of mine about the pre-conception responsibilities of men, as per 2270 and 2271 Catechism), but who also — along with the majority of others here — seems to grow impatient when few others merely begin to discuss abortion as though we were in a real discussion forum and not a Roman Colliseum set up for anti-intellectual anti-choicers to gang up on unsuspecting pro-choicers who are honestly searching for solutions and not just a place to play a useless role in a never-ending, circular, intellectually dishonest and chronically misrepresentative debate.

If “pro choicers” are honestly seeking solutions as you state, you are truly showing your feelings of elitism. You obviously feel you are smarter and more capable than those who have already figured this out and you chose to ignore them even though they are smarter than you. The bible already has the answers you claim to be seeking and it has even been broken down for you by more smart people in the form of the catechism. These documents have been produced by extremely smart people aided by the Holy Spirit and the solution to all of the problems you seek are right there in front of you.

All you need to do is follow Christ’s lead and those He put in Charge of His Church.