Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Caramel]

Really now, if you are going to use a song at least get the words right!!

The* correct* quote is:

“Go ahead and kill a neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend…”

I don’t see how this song applies to the “failure” of the prolife movement; rather I see it as indicative of the hypocrisy of the prochoice movement.

You see, there is a treasure buried. Or at least, it was a treasure at one time. Now it is only the decomposing, rotting shells of babies that the proponents of the prochoice movement believe it is OK to kill. The prochoice movement doesn’t want the treasure that comes from God and from His Heaven, which is the highest mountain of all.

“Go ahead and KILL an unborn creation of God’s love…”

LOL I got the lyrics wrong!! The real lyrics are:
“Go ahead and hate a neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend”

Sorry to anyone who cares…

 

[gakroeger]

Call it what it is; it certainly fits the definition.

 

[Worthy5]

No my friend, that was not the reasoning, that was not what was said—were you paying attention?

If the Church is saying one must vote for pro-life candidates in every single election in order to be in good standing with the Church, then the Church is essentially saying that a Catholic can never support the Democratic party candidate. But that denies the voter a method to replace incumbent office holders that are Republican but need to be voted out because they have been in office too long—not to mention other issues.

There are two main benefits to the two party system: 1) turnover of power-----power corrupts—the Republicans in 2006 had been in control of Congress since 1994-----time to change who is in power. 2) it prevents a multi-party banana republic—we do not want 15 different political parties fracturing power and preventing the democracy from forming a majority on an issue and passing legislation----thus third parties exits for a limited time with no real chance of winning elections.

This country my friend is about limiting government power—that is the issue. Not whether abortion is moral—it is not.

A Catholic is required to follow Church teachings on essential matters of faith and morals as to how one lives his/her life personally. That is where the Church’s authority rest.

Church teaching should inform the Catholic voter and such voter should take into account the issue of abortion when voting but should not be required to make that the controlling factor for every single vote he/she cast.

The Church has no rubric of authority on issues of American law and dictating how an American citizen is to exercise his/her vote at the ballot box. Got it.

 

[Worthy5]

No, not on issues of American law. Got it?

 

[Julian0404]

People who advocate for the death penalty generally change their minds if they ever attend an execution.

Debate will never reconcile “pro-life” catholics to the Truth. There is a video out there, and it may a sonogram video, of an actual abortion in process. Upon viewing it, a Director for Planned Parenthood immediately resigned her postion.

That video, will be the only thing to reconcile “pro life” catholics to the Truth.

 

[Worthy5]

=(name removed by moderator);5985558]We are not talking about issues of American law and that never formed part of the original topic the thread was adressing. You constantly try to warp the thread towards that direction - American law is merely the law of another worldly state, which is better than many that have exsisted, which will in time fail and become extinct like all others have. We are talking about the law of God.

We have been through this before have we not (name removed by moderator). Remember this poster’s response to your concern—page 45 post # 669—about the topic of this thread.

kpeople:

Okay people, this poster is going into a second retirement. Thanks to all for a vigorous debate. It has been instructive. God be with you always. :thankyou:

 

[gakroeger]

People who advocate for the death penalty generally change their minds if they ever attend an execution.

Debate will never reconcile “pro-life” catholics to the Truth. There is a video out there, and it may a sonogram video, of an actual abortion in process. Upon viewing it, a Director for Planned Parenthood immediately resigned her postion.

That video, will be the only thing to reconcile “pro life” catholics to the Truth.

The only thing that allows people to remain “pro choice” is to stay isolated from the reality of it, this is why virtually all “pro choice” people refuse to expose themselves to the reality. One of the posters on here even went to the extent to claim the videos are faked. I don’t know what he/she thinks abortion is; apparently in their minds it is a nice clean painless process for all involved.

 

[Caramel]

The only thing that allows people to remain “pro choice” is to stay isolated from the reality of it, this is why virtually all “pro choice” people refuse to expose themselves to the reality. One of the posters on here even went to the extent to claim the videos are faked. I don’t know what he/she thinks abortion is; apparently in their minds it is a nice clean painless process for all involved.

I kind of thought it was a clean, painless procedure myself (a long, long time ago) because I had to have a D&C performed on me once and they knocked me out cold. But then I saw the photos and there were so many arms and legs and heads just all torn off. It reminds me of a person being drawn and quartered. I think there has to be denial or some sort of defense mechanism at work because it’s hard for me to imagine a human being looking at an aborted baby, especially a baby that is partially delivered and then has its brains sucked out, and still believe that somehow, it’s OK.

 

[Caramel]

People who advocate for the death penalty generally change their minds if they ever attend an execution.

Debate will never reconcile “pro-life” catholics to the Truth. There is a video out there, and it may a sonogram video, of an actual abortion in process. Upon viewing it, a Director for Planned Parenthood immediately resigned her postion.

That video, will be the only thing to reconcile “pro life” catholics to the Truth.

I honestly don’t think that video is sufficient for some people. That particular video has been discussed in this thread and I don’t think there was any sort of positive reaction from anyone who calls themselves “prochoice.”

But I thought it was great that a director of a PP clinic became prolife after seeing it. That just made my day!!

 

[Caramel]

No my friend, that was not the reasoning, that was not what was said—were you paying attention?

If the Church is saying one must vote for pro-life candidates in every single election in order to be in good standing with the Church, then the Church is essentially saying that a Catholic can never support the Democratic party candidate. But that denies the voter a method to replace incumbent office holders that are Republican but need to be voted out because they have been in office too long—not to mention other issues.

There are two main benefits to the two party system: 1) turnover of power-----power corrupts—the Republicans in 2006 had been in control of Congress since 1994-----time to change who is in power. 2) it prevents a multi-party banana republic—we do not want 15 different political parties fracturing power and preventing the democracy from forming a majority on an issue and passing legislation----thus third parties exits for a limited time with no real chance of winning elections.

This country my friend is about limiting government power—that is the issue. Not whether abortion is moral—it is not.

A Catholic is required to follow Church teachings on essential matters of faith and morals as to how one lives his/her life personally. That is where the Church’s authority rest.

Church teaching should inform the Catholic voter and such voter should take into account the issue of abortion when voting but should not be required to make that the controlling factor for every single vote he/she cast.

The Church has no rubric of authority on issues of American law and dictating how an American citizen is to exercise his/her vote at the ballot box. Got it.

Worthy, you have been told over and over and over that prolifers believe and adhere to a law which is much higher than any law in this country and that is a universal law that states all human life is precious and should be protected.

 

[zamboni]

Ok…so if I understand you, you concede that Church teaching is clear that one cannot, in an active or direct manner, politically or socially support any platform or law that permits, supports or seeks to further legal abortion.

I wonder if anyone besides me and Worthy5 (and any other pro-choice people I may not have seen yet) notices the tendency of all pro-lifers on this thread to lead with assertions (sometimes, humble suggestions) as to what words should be put into the pro-choicer’s mouth. This process that pro-lifers try to put their victims through is like dealing with a clothing store salesman who thinks he only needs to know your measurements in order to find the perfect fit for you… from his Herb Tarlek suit rack.

All the pro-lifers on this thread seem to be talking about the abortion issue as if there is no other issue known to humankind that is of equal or perhaps greater importance than abortion, such as all the known factors leading up to and helping to create the perceived and often very real need for access to abortion services.

In my opinion, it is a colossal moral failure of the pro-lifers on this thread along with probably millions of others who think the same way as they say they do, to deny or fail to recognize, whichever the case may be, that their talking points of concern on this issue are centred almost exclusively around how to resolve conception problems AFTER they occur. I would venture to guess that the scope of this failure can be roughly assessed or measured using the same tragically high death-toll numbers that pro-lifers use to shock, frighten, cajole the unwary into accepting their destructively one-sided views.

Instead of explaining myself to you, SteveGC, according to the concessions you and others seek from me and other pro-choicers, apparently to help yourselves understand how pro-choice people supposedly compromise their Catholic values to be pro-choice, allow me to attempt to define the pro-life sin, as I see it, in one sentence, as: Excessively disproportionate application of the law, resulting in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law.

Some of the comments toward the end of your post look like they could be helpful in forming a defined strategy, which I do not have. Since you seem to understand we could be on the same side, I would welcome more (name removed by moderator)ut. Also feel free to follow up on anything else said or with more of your own pro-life questions.

 

[Caramel]

Hi Caramel

You do not need to order Humanae Vitae, all the encyclicals are available on the Vatican’s web site. I have posted this link before; however, here it is again.

Yes, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in spite of the continued ridicule from the secular media was extremely prophetic. It certainly will remain one of the Church’s most important documents far into the future.

Humanae Vitae

This document alone gives the guidance every Catholic needs in regard to this issue. I have tried over and over to get the “pro choice” Catholics to read it.

It is a little long but can be read in and absorbed in less than an hour. I encourage anyone who has not read it to do so.

As mentioned in my last post, if every Catholic lived by this guidance this thread would be unnecessary because there would be no “pro choice” Catholics.

Too late!! I already ordered it; it’s less than 4 bucks - what a bargain!! I also picked up The Gospel of Life: Evangelium Vitae (by Pope John Paul II), Fides et Ratio (also by Pope John Paul II) and The Splendor of Truth: Encyclical Letter (once again by John Paul II). I think they will all be very interesting and useful.

 

[fix]

**

1951

**

Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

The Church teaches this because it is true. How then can erroneous ideas about “pro-choice” be reconciled with Truth? They cannot be reconciled.

 

[fix]

Instead of explaining myself to you, SteveGC, according to the concessions you and others seek from me and other pro-choicers, apparently to help yourselves understand how pro-choice people supposedly compromise their Catholic values to be pro-choice, allow me to attempt to define the pro-life sin, as I see it, in one sentence, as: Excessively disproportionate application of the law, resulting in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law.

Truth cannot contradict truth. The law proscribing murder is not contrary to any “spirit” of the law. I would ask you if the innocent child about to be aborted would hold your understanding?

 

[fix]

Okay, then the Church is saying you have to be a Republican and this really should be only a one party democracy.

The Church is asking you to reject unjust laws that fail to protect the most innocent.

“Are you claiming one may licitly support legalized abortion?”

Get down off you soap box Fix, and quit trying to impute the moral shortcomings of some people onto the rest of us.

Does this mean it is morally acceptable to be in favor of legalized abortion or not?

 

[Caramel]

I wonder if anyone besides me and Worthy5 (and any other pro-choice people I may not have seen yet) notices the tendency of all pro-lifers on this thread to lead with assertions (sometimes, humble suggestions) as to what words should be put into the pro-choicer’s mouth. This process that pro-lifers try to put their victims through is like dealing with a clothing store salesman who thinks he only needs to know your measurements in order to find the perfect fit for you… from his Herb Tarlek suit rack.

All the pro-lifers on this thread seem to be talking about the abortion issue as if there is no other issue known to humankind that is of equal or perhaps greater importance than abortion, such as all the known factors leading up to and helping to create the perceived and often very real need for access to abortion services.

In my opinion, it is a colossal moral failure of the pro-lifers on this thread along with probably millions of others who think the same way as they say they do, to deny or fail to recognize, whichever the case may be, that their talking points of concern on this issue are centred almost exclusively around how to resolve conception problems AFTER they occur. I would venture to guess that the scope of this failure can be roughly assessed or measured using the same tragically high death-toll numbers that pro-lifers use to shock, frighten, cajole the unwary into accepting their destructively one-sided views.

Instead of explaining myself to you, SteveGC, according to the concessions you and others seek from me and other pro-choicers, apparently to help yourselves understand how pro-choice people supposedly compromise their Catholic values to be pro-choice, allow me to attempt to define the pro-life sin, as I see it, in one sentence, as: Excessively disproportionate application of the law, resulting in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law.

Some of the comments toward the end of your post look like they could be helpful in forming a defined strategy, which I do not have. Since you seem to understand we could be on the same side, I would welcome more (name removed by moderator)ut. Also feel free to follow up on anything else said or with more of your own pro-life questions.

I guess zamboni has never heard of NFP.

 

[zamboni]

Truth cannot contradict truth. The law proscribing murder is not contrary to any “spirit” of the law. I would ask you if the innocent child about to be aborted would hold your understanding?

I’ve tried to explain to you that oversimplified questions and statements like yours are no fix, fix. Why do you never base a question on my interpretation of Catechism or my characterization of pro-life hypocrisy and resulting sin? Would it just hurt a lot, or would it kill you to discuss the possibility that the blood of innocent human life is dripping from your hands and not so much from your enemies, comparatively speaking? If you want to just keep posing front-end loaded questions then you should expect to persuade no one that way.

 

[fix]

I’ve tried to explain to you that oversimplified questions and statements like yours are no fix, fix.

My questions are reasonable and go to the substance of the matter. Why ignore them?

Why do you never base a question on my interpretation of Catechism or my characterization of pro-life hypocrisy and resulting sin?

Frankly, I would put this as gently as possible, they make little sense. The issue at hand is that abortion is the taking of an innocent life. What is it exactly you see as hypocritcal? Please be specific with examples. What you have said so far seems very nebulous to me.

Would it just hurt a lot, or would it kill you to discuss the possibility that the blood of innocent human life is dripping from your hands and not so much from your enemies, comparatively speaking? If you want to just keep posing front-end loaded questions then you should expect to persuade no one that way.

You really need to be more explicit in terms what you are referring to. As for persuasion I have stated before that for a subset of folks no argument will be accepted as some refuse to be convinced even when the Pope himself states it in explicit language.

Now, instead of going round and round would you please show us how the OP question can answered? How can the pro choice position be reconciled with the teachings of the magisterium?

 

[fix]

The Church has no rubric of authority on issues of American law and dictating how an American citizen is to exercise his/her vote at the ballot box. Got it.

You may want to read what the Church actually says before claiming the above statement. Erroneous consciences may be culpable depending on the situation.

 

[zamboni]

My questions are reasonable and go to the substance of the matter. Why ignore them?

So, you begin with a prime example of a mere statement that is very argumentative but not the least bit substantiative. It was put to you directly that you ask oversimplified, front-end loaded questions. Why not reply either by explaining how front-end loaded questions seem reasonable to you, or why you do not believe your questions are top-heavy objects trying to achieve an upright position?

To make matters worse, in your next quote YOU will ask ME to provide examples for what I am saying and then accuse me of being “nebulous.” What happened in your hands to the examples I have already given, for example, of when a man’s responsibility for conception should begin? If you care to describe the specific nature of your confusion with my words, instead of simply stating that my words are confusing to you, then this dialogue might surprise us and start advancing.

Frankly, I would put this as gently as possible, they make little sense. The issue at hand is that abortion is the taking of an innocent life. What is it exactly you see as hypocritcal? Please be specific with examples. What you have said so far seems very nebulous to me.

See above response.

You really need to be more explicit in terms what you are referring to. As for persuasion I have stated before that for a subset of folks no argument will be accepted as some refuse to be convinced even when the Pope himself states it in explicit language.

As previously stated, my concern is not so much with what you do listen to and heed of Church teaching, but that which you violate and/or ignore. I have also stated that I have no desire to go against Church teaching as a whole, not just on a single issue. Single-issue politics and religious focus seem to stand out as one of the biggest threats to peace and justice, and not just in our own backyard but all over the world.

Now, instead of going round and round would you please show us how the OP question can answered? How can the pro choice position be reconciled with the teachings of the magisterium?

I refer you to my last response to estebob and invite questions on what has already been stated there in in the links to previous post I had to provide him to try to curtail his desire to keep going in circles. My previous posts may well not be clear enough to spell out or illustrate what I am ultimately trying to say and ask, but you and these many other semi-applicators of half-interested law seem to be pretending that I have said nothing to explain myself previously. Discussion forums that people can review are supposed preclude the possibility of denying what was said in the past, but the pro-lifers on this thread seem to think they can just keep making stuff up as the go along and no one will notice.