O
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Surely you’re not saying that we can’t tell someone that his beliefs are false, even if he is very sincere in his beliefs, yeah?
Of course.
O
OneSheep
Guest
One part I liked:
When Paul wants to summarise the essence of the Christian message in one sentence, he does not say, ‘I proclaim this or that doctrine to you.’ He says, ‘‘We preach . . . Jesus Christ as Lord.”
Thanks!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yet, that is not an abortion. In fact, one of the ways of “mitigating an ectopic pregnancy” – that is, directly killing the baby – is prohibited by Catholic moral teaching, since it is an abortion.
That is not true, and your next sentence proves it…
See what I mean? It’s not that they might argue that there is no intent to take a life; the argument is that the life being taken is less valuable that the one that is being ‘inconvenienced’. So, the argument you claim (“no one intends to take a life”) doesn’t hold water.
In that case, it’s necessary to explain that the procedure removes the section of the fallopian tube before it bursts.
No – the death of the baby is the result. Big difference. Abortion isn’t ‘death’, it’s ‘murder’. You’re conflating the two.
We’re so afraid of saying the truth and being labeled with the big evil “J” word that we can’t call a spade a spade?
…The really funny thing about this whole thread is that there is one poster – and one poster only – who makes the claim about people who are “less Catholic”. Know who it is? Pumpkin, who is the one who needs that claim to be true in order to jumpstart his assertions. And, while the Catholics on this thread have been crying out, over and again, “the Emperor has no clothes!”, PC continues on, proudly modeling his transparent argument…
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Especially in the past before there was a Catechism to consult, how would any Catholic have know whether a statement by a pope or a bishop, etc. was a “doctrinal statement of the Church” or just a silly opinion? How would someone distinguish between the two, especially since the Church doesn’t “speak” but only people in the Church who write and say things in its name?I don’t have a problem with individuals making contradictory statements – but that’s not what you’ve been claiming: you’ve been claiming that the Church has made official doctrinal statements that contradict each other. You haven’t demonstrated that to be the case. You really do need to realize that individuals can say silly things, but that doesn’t rise to the level of official doctrinal statements of the Church.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well… you’re talking before Trent, then?
I think that it would be necessary to recognize the difference in the societies and cultures of (for example) pre-Trent Europe and the 21st century West. Moreover, it’s important to recognize how authority structures were viewed and treated in these various temporal and cultural contexts.
I think that, prior to Trent, the notion that a pope or bishop might pronounce “a silly opinion” on a matter of faith and morals was inconceivable. (Even today, you would have to state your case how – in a Catholic context – a formal statement on faith and morals (which was intended to rise to the level of doctrine) might be considered to be ‘silly’.)
Prior to the publication of catechisms, Church teachings were found in official magisterial statements (just as they continue to be found today). Prior to the invention of the internet, or even the printing press, access to these teachings was found through representatives of the Church. The whole raison d’etre of the Trent Catechism was to allow priests and bishops to have a handy reference to Church teaching, so that they could pass that teaching on accurately.
So, the “how would you know” question, framed up in a previous age, is a question that needs to be unpacked in a variety of dimensions even before we get to a discussion of what doctrinal statements look like. The rule of thumb in those days, I might suggest, is that the best source of information was the local cleric: one would know that it was Church teaching based on the source and the context of the discussion. Was that a perfect solution? No. Was it the best available solution? At the time, yes.
We’re not much better these days, to tell the truth. These days, anyone with an internet connection can grab the documents and misinterpret them for himself, instead of taking the risk of letting someone else misinterpret them for him. :sad_yes:
O
OneSheep
Guest
To clarify, no one takes a life that they value. We are all subject to ignorance and blindness. A mosquito is a life, but when it is on my arm, it has negative value. To this lack of value I submit; I have not been given reason to refrain from killing it. I think you have seen that people are also quite capable of being blind to the value of children and adults.Yet, that is not an abortion. In fact, one of the ways of “mitigating an ectopic pregnancy” – that is, directly killing the baby – is prohibited by Catholic moral teaching, since it is an abortion.
That is not true, and your next sentence proves it…
See what I mean? It’s not that they might argue that there is no intent to take a life; the argument is that the life being taken is less valuable that the one that is being ‘inconvenienced’. So, the argument you claim (“no one intends to take a life”) doesn’t hold water.
Definition of murder (webster)
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
So, our laws are corrupted in the U.S. Even so, all of those involved in the abortion are well-intended, though ignorant or blind. In the year of mercy (as always), we are called to forgive, and mature forgiveness calls for understanding. You will not find a case of “malice aforethought” in terms of people actually knowing what they are doing.
So, to bring this back to the thread, we believe, as our creed says, in the forgiveness of sins, and we agree that Jesus calls us to value life. We have different reactions to sin, but the bottom line is to love, and forgiveness is an act of love. We have different approaches, but our unity is not found in approaches or methodology. Our unity is found in Eucharist. Abortion, murder, malice, judging, moral teaching, etc., these are all words. Being Catholic is much, much more than words, and words can needlessly get in the way of communion for those who are caught up in them. What about you, Gorgias, are you in communion with those Catholics who use “murder” and “abortion” in different ways?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, we can tell him, but gently. In the process, we might actually learn something, but a lot of it boils down to the definitions, which may be firmly seated empirically. It is compassionate, I think, to understand the definitions that people are using, and to see the emotional underpinnings of beliefs.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course.
I don’t think anyone has been advocating a shrill, in-your-face type of correction, so not sure why you would make such a statement?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough: the pro-choice crowd either doesn’t recognize ‘life’ or doesn’t understand ‘value’ therein. Yet, you seemed to be arguing for them based on their principled stand; instead, it seems, rather than heralding their principles, we should be addressing their misunderstandings. I can stand with that.
I’m always wary of using dictionary definitions as the basis for discussions in specialized contexts.
For this, they deserve no particular kudos. Augustine (IIRC) argued that no one chooses evil for evil’s sake – rather, they do so out of a mistaken understanding. As the saying goes, “the path to hell is lined with good intentions.” Celebrating ‘good intentions’ doesn’t seem the appropriate course of action here…
We are called to forgive those who are asking forgiveness… no?
And this is where a dependence on a dictionary leads to error. ‘Murder’ doesn’t always require ‘malice aforethought’ – murder can be murder even in the absence of ‘malice aforethought.’ Similarly, abortion does not cease to be murder, even if people don’t “actually know what they are doing.”
More importantly than just being ‘words’, they represent realities.
We disagree, then. It’s not the ‘words’ that separate; it’s the realities that separate us. Realities don’t ‘needlessly get in the way’ – they highlight the fact that communion is already broken.
You’re gonna have to ask that question in another way; I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask. Do I hope that those who think that ‘murder’ and ‘abortion’ aren’t always identical might come to an resolution of their misunderstanding? Absolutely. Do I hope that we might reach ‘communion’ – a communion that doesn’t require us to shrug at the taking of innocent life? Certainly! Do I bury my head in the sand and assert ‘communion’ where one does not exist? Not at all. :nope:
G
guanophore
Guest
That is what distinguishes it from an abortion.
Treatment is allowed. Procedures that may result in the loss of the fetus are allowed. The deliberate, intentional and willful act of ending an innocent life is not allowed.
No, ending of an ectopic pregnancy is not equivalent to an abortion, which is a singular desire to end the innocent life of the fetus. Treatment of an ectopic pregnancy does usually result in the loss of the fetus, but that is not the goal.
Yes, I agree. We very much need to educate, and to provide alternatives.
I think the thread is spent.
Every closed communion is of this kind, and every open communion tolerates diversity /heterodoxy.
Of course not! A persons personal prayers during Eucharist, and the disposition of their heart, is between themselves and God.
It would be inappropriate for a person to present themselves for communion in a Catholic setting who rejects the teachings of the Church. When we say “amen”, it means we agree with all that is believed and taught.
Eucharist has nothing to do with a person’s individual attitudes about “inclusion”. It is a public act of acknowleging and participating in the Catholic faith, which is One. When we receive communion, we are testifying before all with our bodies that we affirm the teachings of the faith.
The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.
Trinitarian baptisms are Catholic
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So even Baptists and Lutherans, etc. who have had a Trinitarian baptism have had a Catholic (with a capital “C”) baptism?
G
guanophore
Guest
There are many who are ignorant, and pressured.
How does one define “malice aforethought” in the case of taking the life of an innocent to reduce problems in their own life?
I agree, women do not approach abortion with malevolent intentions toward the products of conception (some do, such as rape victims and people who are hateful toward the father) but most of the time they are not even thinking of it as a life, just a problem/inconvenience.
I am not really sure I understand this question, but if a person rejects the teaching of the Church on abortion, then they automatically excommunicate themselves, so those who accept the doctrine will not be in communion with them any longer.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning!
I don’t know where I gave you the impression that I am “heralding their principles”, Gorgias, I have been addressing their misunderstandings.
Yes, where did that “saying” come from? It is not Gospel or scripture. I am not promoting celebration of good intentions, what I am doing is trying to prove at this point on this thread that Catholics can overcome, or look past, some seeming dissentions and find a deeper unity, legitimate differences can be harmonized.
With that in mind, would you agree that in using the gift of understanding, and finding good intentions, we are on the road to forgiveness of others?
We are called to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” and those who see Jesus see the Father. From the cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant active in His torture. Such is our calling, to forgive whether forgiveness is asked for or not. Can we agree on the example from the cross?
And this is where a dependence on a dictionary leads to error. ‘Murder’ doesn’t always require ‘malice aforethought’ – murder can be murder even in the absence of ‘malice aforethought.’ Similarly, abortion does not cease to be murder, even if people don’t “actually know what they are doing.”
Yes, they represent realities, but that “reality” is seen in different ways with different emphasis. We can use words to condemn others, or we can use words to understand others, with the goal of forgiveness. Would you agree that the underlying reality is a call to forgive, when we are addressing the sins of others, as well as a call to correct?
Well, I am in communion with sinners, and with the ignorant. Are you? I am looking for a point of agreement. A broken communion is going to be in the eye of the beholder.
Errr… “requiring a shrug”? There is no reason for communion to “require”, or even imply, such a shrug.
God Bless
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Guanophore!That is what distinguishes it from an abortion.
Treatment is allowed. Procedures that may result in the loss of the fetus are allowed. The deliberate, intentional and willful act of ending an innocent life is not allowed.
No, ending of an ectopic pregnancy is not equivalent to an abortion, which is a singular desire to end the innocent life of the fetus. Treatment of an ectopic pregnancy does usually result in the loss of the fetus, but that is not the goal.
Abortion is only a “singular desire” if the mother or someone else actually hates the life and wants to end it, which is no different than a premeditated murder. Even so, the intent is to destroy what is seen as an evil. The murderer is blind. It is much more common for the “singular desire” to be avoidance of parenthood or the burden of carrying a child, the child is seen as a “fetus” or a “product of conception” or some other such dehumanizing term. The goal is avoidance of condemnation of others, a life burdened with new expenses and changes, etc. I am not condoning, but explaining.
Can you agree that when we hold something against the mother or the doctor, we are called to forgive?
See, we agree on something very important!
I am unfamiliar with the terms you are using, but I am still saying that our communion is based on commitment to Christ, not “unity of doctrine”, and I am wondering if you have doctrine saying otherwise.
This is not a pastoral approach, guanophore. You will not find a Pope saying that. What is the basis of such “inappropriateness”? Are you in communion with those who do not agree with some of what is “believed and taught”?
1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.
Note: “sacrament of love, sign of unity, bond of charity”. It is an act affirming a bond with Christ, who is present in all people. There is nothing in the CCC, though, that contradicts what you are saying. If in receiving communion you are testifying that you are affirming all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, that is great!
So, given that we all have very different experiences and interpretation of teachings, can we agree that the main “bond”, manifest in Eucharist, is one of love and charity?
Still trying to show that “confusion” is not necessarily divisive…
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good question, it is hard to find the malice aforethought, it is easier to find the ignorant aforethought.
Yes.
Well, I am still in “communion” with those that reject the teachings, regardless of the Church’s assertions. Does that make me more inclusive than the hierarchy? I understand and forgive those who reject the teachings. Does a person who believes that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right, which was a mass extermination, truly meant to take innocent life, “automatically excommunicate” himself? No, he does not, and neither do I banish him from my own sense of “communion”.
We all have our own set of blind spots, do we not?
D
davidv
Guest
Do blind spots excuse sin?Good question, it is hard to find the malice aforethought, it is easier to find the ignorant aforethought.
Yes.
Well, I am still in “communion” with those that reject the teachings, regardless of the Church’s assertions. Does that make me more inclusive than the hierarchy? I understand and forgive those who reject the teachings. Does a person who believes that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right, which was a mass extermination, truly meant to take innocent life, “automatically excommunicate” himself? No, he does not, and neither do I banish him from my own sense of “communion”.
We all have our own set of blind spots, do we not?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Great question, David. “Blind spots” help explain sin, in the context of the created human that God found good, and we all can find good.
If by “excuse” you mean “averting consequence”, then there is no excuse, for sin has its own inherent consequences. If you mean, "does explanation and understanding of human sin inspire us to let go of desire to punish, and replace such inclination with mercy (which may include an applied punishment) then the answer is “yes”.
D
davidv
Guest
Most blindness I see is self imposed, so in those cases God’s mercy may be overruled by His justice.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The unrepentant do not accept mercy. There is only the justice that comes with seeing them as they are ( I.e. what they have done willingly and unapologetically). Who they have made themselves to be is their sentence for eternity.
- Status