Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[zamboni]

I was just a short time ago Zamboni was accusing us of being fundamentalists (interpreting the bible literally) now, he does the same thing. I wonder if he read or understood the last sentence?

At least someone picked up on the question that Irish Catholic named member did not want to touch with his ten foot pole when he responded so fractionally. Unfortunately, the gakroeger member, also OP, shows the same total lack of discrimination in both his reading and writing skills on this thread, which I will now prove with an example, instead of simply making a charge like that and then running away like all the pro-lifer’s in this thread have repeatedly done:

gakroeger says in his above response that he really did watch the fundamentalism video I posted earlier. According to his understanding of what he saw, however, the bible is not supposed to be interpreted literally or figuratively, in some cases. At least that is what he leads me to believe without even trying explaining if he thinks the stone of John 8:1-11 is just a stone (not also a metaphor), and if the story is just meant to teach about how to deal with the sin of adultery? He dodged the whole question and then used a false understanding of my posted video to try to put me into conflict / at odds with my own submission. Only a fool could not see through this lazy attempt to discredit opposition, gakroeger.

I interpret this John 8:1-11 both literally and figuratively, which is not at odds in any way with the video I posted earlier, even though it was suggested in error or deception that I did just this, by mr. not-very-fair (or honest?) OP.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

At least someone picked up on the question that Irish Catholic named member did not want to touch with his ten foot pole when he responded so fractionally. Unfortunately, the gakroeger member, also OP, shows the same total lack of discrimination in both his reading and writing skills on this thread, which I will now prove with an example, instead of simply making a charge like that and then running away like all the pro-lifer’s in this thread have repeatedly done…

Who do you think you are kidding here anyway? Not one single person in this thread is buying into your nonsense.

Abortion is murder. Thats the bottom line. All the other stuff you are trying to lay on top of that simple fact is just whitewash.

We would all like to know why you are so desperately trying to justify murderring innocent children in their mothers’ wombs.

Hmmmmmmm? Please tell us why you are so hell-bent on justifying infanticide?

 

[zamboni]

…

If you are not able/willing to understand what your opponents are saying any better than your latest feeble attempt shows then you can only shoot blanks in a discussion like this. The conclusions you reach about what I have been saying all along are far too removed from reality to be dignified with a response.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

If you are not able/willing to understand what your opponents are saying any better than your latest feeble attempt shows then you can only shoot blanks in a discussion like this. The conclusions you reach about what I have been saying all along are far too removed from reality to be dignified with a response.

Dude, I have reached the same conclusion as everyone else in this thread, which is that you are trying to justify the murder of innocent children.

The fact that you can’t see that everyone here disagrees with you only demonstrates that it is YOU who are far removed from reality, not me. You have tried every trick in the book to distort my words and misrepresent me, and it just doesn’t fly, because in the end you are trying to defend the indefensible: ABORTION

 

[zamboni]

I would deal with you same as any shadow monster who avoids responding to me directly for the most part, ignores all my questions, and only pops his head above ground when he thinks he’s got on ace up his sleeve. I’m glad you don’t support the death penalty but the micro-issue-approach to arguing with pro-choicers only discredits the many pro-lifers here who use it so liberally and so shamelessly to try to dig themselves of deep holes.

 

[gamewell45]

I am proposing arresting the doctors who perform abortions - not the women who get conned or coerced into having them.

I consider the women who get abortions to be co-victims with their children; not criminals. My proposal to arrest abortionists is entirely gender-neutral - both male and female abortionists would receive life sentences with the possibility of parole no earlier than 25 years, just as if they had actually killed a human being.

Ok, say we go along with your plan; where’s the money going to come from to incarcerate these people? Higher taxes?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…I am proposing arresting the doctors who perform abortions - not the women who get conned or coerced into having them…

Hmmm. You post some pretty good posts, but I have to question this one.

How is a person “conned” into partaking in a murder? Women know darn good and well what they are doing: They are not stupid. How can you punish the doctor but give the woman a free pass?

 

[Benadam]

]I thought you were one of the good guys but now you are trying to lump me in with whatever pre-conceived profile you work with when addressing someone who votes pro-choice at election time, not that I have to care about only abortion to do that in my country.

I’m feelin’ lumped. I’m the one that’s not a good guy anymore. Now I fit the preconcieved profile you’ve already worked out.

pro-lifers who are as lazy and uncommitted to understanding more than one side of a conception problem should keep their noses out of other people’s business?

That’s the one. Lazy, self centered busy bodies.

It should not be up to you, Benadam, to decide if abortion should be a legal right for others. Why not just govern yourself and stay out of other women’s panties? Or do you possess a right to cast the first stone like the rest of the Pharisees around here?

Self righteous hypocrits who think they should be telling everyone what to do.

God can see the whole issue, so I would bet my life that He and Our Blessed Mother do not appreciate the rearguard-action war that pro-lifers fight. One of the many previous questions I have posed on this thread that no one tried to answer is what makes pro-lifers believe that God needs them to protect the unborn when the Gospel of Matthew 3:9 states:

What makes you think that God needs anything? As for the unborn God has made man a self determined creature. The fate of the unborn is determined by the self determined. It’s our nature and God made us that way. What makes you think God would do for us what we are created to naturally do?

"Do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

If only the unborn you refuse to dignify could experience the feeling of being the irreplaceable children of their father like those Pharisees.

 

[zamboni]

What makes you think God would do for us what we are created to naturally do?

The only thing you said that I can work with is the above question. Everything else is based on persistent misperceptions or lies being carried forward through this thread by the pro-lifers here, which any independent observer can plainly see. That’s what threads like this are for. There’s no where to run or hide from your own words or those of others in an online discussion forum. At least that is how it’s supposed to work, but group-denial works here for the very small band of pro-lifers who continue to dare to speak up.

What I have learned here is how weak the pro-life legal position is. No wonder you cannot win a Supreme Court decision. God knows how to define murder for himself and everyone already knows what God thinks about what HE considers to be real murder, including the real kind that happens when willful ignorance exacerbates already serious and growing deadly problems.

In answer to the only question I see which may not have been answered within any of my previous posts, when I asked what makes pro-lifers think God needs them to protect unborn life, my question was not meant to suggest to you that we should need more help from God, or that God should have a desire to become more proactively perfect as a way to make up for growing human problems, like – let’s say – obesity… of body or of single-mindedness to overeat an issue that is none of the obese thinker’s business, except as it applies to them, of course. Unless, that is, they think they somehow possess the right to cast the first stone. I figure that if God kept providing the perfect abundance we keep demanding more of all the time, obviously our bodies and/or bloated single-minds, as the case may be, would explode in mid-air. It’s like asking God to help us kill ourselves faster.

 

[LittleSoldier]

In answer to the only question I see which may not have been answered within any of my previous posts, when I asked what makes pro-lifers think God needs them to protect unborn life, my question was not meant to suggest to you that we should need more help from God, or that God should have a desire to become more proactively perfect as a way to make up for growing human problems, like – let’s say – obesity… of body or of single-mindedness to overeat an issue that is none of the obese thinker’s business, except as it applies to them, of course. Unless, that is, they think they somehow possess the right to cast the first stone. I figure that if God kept providing the perfect abundance we keep demanding more of all the time, obviously our bodies and/or bloated single-minds, as the case may be, would explode in mid-air. It’s like asking God to help us kill ourselves faster.

Um, yep that makes sense.

 

[beafedor]

Dear fellow Catholic ‘pro-choicers’. I haven’t posted in a while on account of being dizzy on the computer. Still I would like to share this:
I’ve been where you are, defending ‘the right to choose’, been on feminists marches and I have sacrificed 2 children on the altar of abortion. The big difference between me and you is that I was not a professed catholic at the time. You guys know better, you know your Catechism, you have knowledge of Evangelium Vitae and other writings by the Popes and American Bishops (a lot has been quoted on this thread). Therefore you can’t ignore the fact that by supporting/condoning the intrinsic evil of abortion, you have broken your relationship with God. You are in a state of mortal sin as I used to be. It’s up to each sinner, using their free will to come back to Jesus in the Sacrament of Confession, by God’s Grace you can reconcile yourselves with Him.

Please read what Bishop Rene Henry Gracida has written about pro-choice Catholics politicians in ‘A Twelve Step Program for Bishops’ by Bishop:

Quote: « Ordinaries need to instill publicly, through their personal preaching and through the vicarious preaching of their priests, that not only is it against the Christian Faith to support the ‘right to choose,’ but that one loses entirely the virtue of Supernatural Faith, the right to the Sacraments, Christian Burial, and more importantly, eternal Salvation if one publicly and obstinately adheres to a ‘right to choose abortion’ in opposition to the fundamental belief of the Christian and Apostolic Faith in the sanctity of innocent human life. » Source : ewtn.com/library/bishops/12stepbp.htm

Zamboni, I have so much to tell you but my computer time is limited due to illness and having 2 little kids to care of. One thing I’d like to say to you is please, please, stop defending my right to choose I beg you. It has caused me enough pain and loss.

In a previous post, you were discussing my pro-life sources. Well yours I saw were planned parenthood and glamour magazine. For some reason, I’d rather trust a news agency that doesn’t exploit woman’s desperate situations to make money and has a few moral standards.
And by the way, on the subject of condoms, a professor of Harvard (non catholic, non pro-life, non partisan) said that Pope John Paul and Benedict are right in their teaching on condoms, that condoms actually spread AIDS and don’t solve anything. I have provided a link to the Professor’s website before, I’ll research and re-post later.

You ask what makes pro-lifers believe that God needs them to defend unborn children? You are accusing pro-lifers of being pharisees and casting stones to the women ?
I, one of many adulterous women like the one in the story, can attest that you are getting this wrong. Through our Baptism and Sacrament of Confirmation, we are called to be like Christ in our words and deeds (see my previous post with CCC references on Confirmation). That’s what they do. Our individualistic society has given up on the widow and the orphan, they have not because Christ taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves. They offer their prayers, give their time and treasure in crisis pregnancy centers and other charities, do side walk counseling in front of abortion mills, throw baby showers and so many other things. They are saving lives and spare women the pain of murdering their child. How are you being Christ to others?

Jesus said to the adulterous woman: « neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. » These words are, I dare to say, what is keeping me alive today. I should say me and thousands of post abortive men and women who have received His grace. As I stated earlier, catholic pro-choicers are in a state of mortal sin. Jesus is waiting for you but you have to make the decision to come to Him in the Sacrament of Penance. Prayers, Beafedor

 

[zamboni]

Zamboni, I have so much to tell you but my computer time is limited due to illness and having 2 little kids to care of. One thing I’d like to say to you is please, please, stop defending my right to choose I beg you. It has caused me enough pain and loss.

I will not presume to defend your right to choose but sure hope you do not presume to speak for all women in presuming to ask me to stop at all. That is the problem with you pro-lifers. You speak for God and the Pope, not like inheritance-worthy meek people. I believe that God and the Pope and other Church leaders have recognized authority and thus would be within their rights to say what they say, whereas no one here appears to have any authority. Why do pro-lifers not see a difference between their role and God’s role? The quote provided from Church authority says do not support pro-choice, it does not say go ahead and cast the first stone at women who are otherwise free to choose. I’m still waiting for someone to confirm that the Church itself reserves the right to excommunicate women who have had abortions, along with all accomplices, which is my current understanding but only based on a pro-life lay-Catholic video. If the Church reserves that right but is not exercising it at this time then my guess would be that we are in some kind of grace or amnesty period of time.

In a previous post, you were discussing my pro-life sources. Well yours I saw were planned parenthood and glamour magazine.

I will be leaving this thread soon precisely because of bald-faced lies like this being carried forward through this thread by a small gang of very weak, childish debaters who deserve no one’s ear but each others. I have provided so many more sources than your picture paints that your picture is a disgrace to your name. I cannot even read the rest of your words because this is too sad an experience.

 

[zamboni]

Just in case anyone is under the impression that pro-life Catholicism enjoys the support of Church laity outside of this thread, I offer the following reference:

“A small minority of Catholic voters believe that abortion should never be legal. Only 14 percent believe that abortion should never be legal, while 85 percent of Catholic voters believe abortion should be legal in all, most or just a few cases.” catholicsforchoice.org/topics/politics/documents/OnepgSummaryofPoll.pdf

 

[zamboni]

In a previous post, you were discussing my pro-life sources. Well yours I saw were planned parenthood and glamour magazine. For some reason, I’d rather trust a news agency that doesn’t exploit woman’s desperate situations to make money and has a few moral standards.

I spent a considerable amount of time reading four articles you already asked me to read (which all came from one source), and then there was the time taken to write two posts in response to you offering my opinions, pointing out certain discrepancies that seemed like obvious misrepresentation, etc. I also provide a link to a published report showing that your lone source is known for dishonest number reporting. But like the rest of the pro-lifers here, you ignored my responses and wrote a born-yesterday post. If you still plan to respond, I would ask that you reply first to the first two post I prepared for you before I have to deal with any new posts from you. Otherwise, you will leave me with no reason to believe that the same thing will not happen to my time again, time and time again.

No response from Beafedor…

No response from Beafedor…

 

[zamboni]

Two quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX “Apostolicae Sedis”. It decrees excommunication…”

Also according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, no one here has the authority to seek to extend the law.

“For no one but the lawgiver has the right to extend the law beyond the terms in which it is expressed.”

Link for both quotes:newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

 

[zamboni]

Source of info: bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/abortion_1.shtml#section_2

• the Catholic Church has affirmed the right and the responsibility of each Catholic to follow his or her own conscience on moral matters, even when it conflicts with Church teaching

•	others may take the view that certain absolutes cannot be subjugated to one's own will


**•	****the Church has not declared that its teaching on sexual and reproductive issues is infallible******


•	64% of US Catholics disapprove of the statement that abortion is morally wrong in every case (Survey of 493 Catholics, designed by Lake Research and Tarrance Group, for US News & World Report, Sept. 1995, margin of error ± 4.5%.)


•	72% of Catholics in Australia say decisions about abortion should be left to individual women and their doctors. (Survey for Family Planning Australia and Children by Choice, Melbourne, AGB McNair, Aug. 1996.)

 

[zamboni]

Any abortion can be justified under the following Catholic guidelines, which appear to forbid only those abortions performed a means of birth control for convenience sake. This reconciles all but conveniece-only pro-choice politics with Catholic Church teaching, which satisfies what some members here have called the “question” of this thread’s title.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, an action involving a double effect may possibly be morally acceptable if all of the following four conditions are met:

That the negative effects are not sought, and all reasonable efforts are made to avoid them.
That the direct effect is positive.
That the negative effect is not made a means to obtain the positive effect.
That the positive effect is at least as important as the negative effect.

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c1.htm

 

[zamboni]

The Catholic Crusade Against a Mythical Abortion Bill
Time Magazine – Feb 19, 2009

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia sent a letter to every member of Congress imploring them to “please oppose FOCA.” There is only one hitch. Congress isn’t about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act — because no such bill has been introduced in the current Congress…

A chain e-mail of unknown origin soon began making its way into Catholic inboxes, warning of an imminent threat to the anti-abortion cause. “For those of you who do not know,” it read, “the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is set to be signed if Congress passes it on January 21-22 of 2009. The FOCA is the next sick chapter in the book of abortion.” The e-mail urged Catholics to say a novena — a devotion of dedicated prayer for nine successive days — beginning on Jan. 11 and ending the day prior to Inauguration Day.

When Jan. 22 came and went without a Freedom of Choice Act becoming law, the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities announced a nationwide postcard campaign to blanket congressional offices and the White House with appeals to stop FOCA. Anti-FOCA groups on Facebook soon had more than 150,000 members and added thousands more each day. Priests started preaching against the legislation, and churches began circulating petitions to oppose its passage…

But FOCA has provided ammunition for those on the right who want to paint Obama as “the most pro-abortion President ever.”

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880451,00.html

 

[Benadam]

Any abortion can be justified under the following Catholic guidelines, which appear to forbid only those abortions performed a means of birth control for convenience sake. This reconciles all but conveniece-only pro-choice politics with Catholic Church teaching, which satisfies what some members here have called the “question” of this thread’s title.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, an action involving a double effect may possibly be morally acceptable if all of the following four conditions are met:

That the negative effects are not sought, and all reasonable efforts are made to avoid them.
That the direct effect is positive.
That the negative effect is not made a means to obtain the positive effect.
That the positive effect is at least as important as the negative effect.

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c1.htm

These are guidelines for particular cases. To present them as valid arguments for reformation of civil law distorts their purpose.

The Magisterial teaching in regards of abortion, the direct killing of innocent life at it’s most vulnerable stage is that it is** never **morally acceptable.

The guidelines posted by Zamboni apply only to cases that involve procedures that are necessary but would result in the death of the child. The intention is not to end the child’s life. these are not cases directed to kill innocent life.

In fact the Pope may be requiring judges to actively reform the law. This is a requirement of Catholic legislatures as the threats of making those who disobey non-communicants make obvious but the Popes latest directions imply this is now extended to judges

.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880977,00.html

 

[zamboni]

Respecting the Moral Agency of Women

“To deny a woman the power to make decisions is to disrespect the integrity of her conscience and, ultimately, to deny her full personhood… The lesson for Christians is that Christ-like servanthood can be chosen only by people who have the power to choose.”

Read more: rcrc.org/pdf/moral_agency_women.pdf