The Pro Choice Catholic

[YipYupYep]

Would not a Catholic who publicity speaks out in support of Pro Choice or speaks out for a Pro Choice candidate be a heretic?

"In Christianity, heresy is a “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.”

What do you think?

 

[Timothysis]

I think they would be a really bad Catholic.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Would not a Catholic who publicity speaks out in support of Pro Choice or speaks out for a Pro Choice candidate be a heretic?

"In Christianity, heresy is a “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.”

What do you think?

Yes.

 

[Cat]

I can certainly see your point of view and would love to lend my support for the suggestion, but what exactly would it accomplish?

What good would actually come of a layperson like me labelling another Christian “heretic?”

Will God be interested in my label? Will my opinion tell God anything He doesn’t already know about this person?

Will my label get them excommunicated or cause them to lose their salvation and go to hell?

Will the local parish kick out the person that* I *label “heretic?” Will the parish priests refuse to serve Communion to the person that Cat called “heretic?”

Will they not be allowed to sing in the choir or attend the Knights of Columbus Pancake Breakfast anymore? Will they be shunned by all the “non-heretics” in the local parish?

Will my labelling of the person help me to show them the Love of Christ? Will they grow closer to Christ because* I call them “heretic?” Will they repent and renounce their sins, seek absolution, do penance, and strive for sainthood because I *labelled them “heretic?”

Or will I just feel more righteous than the “heretic?”

It seems to me that the approach of calling another Christian “heretic” has a lot of “me” and “I” in it. That doesn’t sound right at all.

I personally don’t think any good at all will come out of labelling another Christian a “heretic.” I think it’s possible that our labelling would cause them to recognize their sin and repent, but more than likely, I think that we would succeed only in driving them out of the Church, and then WE would be held accountable for the loss of their soul!

Wouldn’t it be more constructive and charitable to use the approach in James 5: 19-20, and tell them and keep telling them, kindly and humbly, with tears in our eyes, but firmly and with conviction, that their beliefs are “contrary to Church teachings and that these beliefs put them in danger of believing in a heresy”?

Wouldn’t that approach possibly accomplish more good? Isn’t that our task here on this earth–to love our neighbor and do good and to bring as many people as possible to heaven with us?

One more question–do laypeople have the right to call another Christian a heretic, or is that determination to be made only by the Church (Magisterium)? Thank you.

 

[Nickkname]

Heresy would be regards the Church’s teachings, so if a Catholic publically stated he believed abortion was okay, than he would be committing heresy. But if a Catholic publically states he is for a pro-choice politician, he isn’t a heretic - but he would be a very bad Catholic. However, if that Catholic voted for the pro-choice politican, than he would be a heretic.

 

[JReducation]

It’s always good to follow the lead of our bishops and the Holy Father on these matters.

1. There are Catholic politicians who are pro-choice and have been told not to receive holy communion because their position is very public and to give them holy communion causes scandal. The bishops have not called them heretics. But the fact that they may not receive holy communion is a form of excommunication.
2. Then there is the case of Tony Blair. When he converted to Catholicism the Vatican made it clear that it did not require him to recant his position on abortion while he was Prime Minister and an Anglican as a requirement to be received into the Church. The Vatican spokes person said that the position of the Holy Father was the “Mr. Blair has some growing to do in the faith.” Obviously, as a Catholic he cannot support abortion. Whether he continues to believe that it should be legal or not is not an issue for the Church as long as it is not a public scandal. Mr. Blair has made no comments on this regard since he became a Catholic. We do not know if he still feels that it should be legal, but immoral or should be banned. We just don’t know. Maybe the Vatican knows, because they had plenty of dealings with him.

The point is that the Church does not apply the heretic label as liberally as lay people seem to do. The Church condemns the action and the positions that are immoral as gravely sinful.

The Church has not condemned those who vote for pro choice candidates. The guidance offered on voting does leave open the possibility to vote for pro-choice candidates. The conditions for doing so are very stringent. But it is possible that a Catholic who is opposed to abortion can legitimately vote for a pro-choice candidate.

The bottom line is that Catholics must always choose the greater good, even if they can’t erradicate evil. We can never choose the lesser of two evils, because we would be choosing evil, in either case.

How we discern the greater good is problematic and in the end it is the individual conscience who makes that decision.

Personally, I do not support pro-abortion candidates, not because I see them as evil or as heretics. I simply see their position as morally unjustifiable.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The Church has not condemned those who vote for pro choice candidates. The guidance offered on voting does leave open the possibility to vote for pro-choice candidates. The conditions for doing so are very stringent. But it is possible that a Catholic who is opposed to abortion can legitimately vote for a pro-choice candidate.

I don’t think that is entirely accurate. The Church teaches the important difference between intrinsically immoral acts, such as abortion and euthanasia, which are always gravely immoral, and other issues, such as taxes and even particular wars, which are temporal and do not constitute the same level of gravity. Since many bishops have also stated that life issues must take priority in voting, and that it is unacceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate in virtually every practical circumstance, can we say that the Magisterium has taught this?

I listened to a sermon by Fr. John Corapi last week. This sermon was privately recorded but will be made public at some point (it was produced for Catholics United for the Faith, which present Fr. with an award). The sermon concerned the election and life issues. Father stated that it is not acceptable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate, and furthermore stated that any clergy who do not speak out on this issue are “useless”. Yes, that is the word he used.

Four years ago the fact that one candidate supported partial-birth abortion seemed almost too surrealistically horrible to accept. Now we have one who, make no mistake, has no problem with outright infanticide.

John Paul II spent the latter portion of his life fighting this Culture of Death, to use the appropriate phrase he coined. This is what’s at stake here. It’s an entire philosophy. It’s paganism vs. Christ, pure and simple. This is the way it was in the beginning - what put Christians against the Romans - and little has changed at the core.

Why the apparent fear to make strong statements on the part of some? What of the innocent lives that are literally torn apart, and the souls that are being destroyed? Isn’t it worth stepping on a few toes now & then?

 

[JuanCarlos]

A Mexican Bishop recently said if someone is prochoice, they are not Catholic. It’s like if someone claimed to be a Muslim but believed that Muslims should pork at every meal and pray to idols.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that is entirely accurate. The Church teaches the important difference between intrinsically immoral acts, such as abortion and euthanasia, which are always gravely immoral, and other issues, such as taxes and even particular wars, which are temporal and do not constitute the same level of gravity. Since many bishops have also stated that life issues must take priority in voting, and that it is unacceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate in virtually every practical circumstance, can we say that the Magisterium has taught this?

I listened to a sermon by Fr. John Corapi last week. This sermon was privately recorded but will be made public at some point (it was produced for Catholics United for the Faith, which present Fr. with an award). The sermon concerned the election and life issues. Father stated that it is not acceptable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate, and furthermore stated that any clergy who do not speak out on this issue are “useless”. Yes, that is the word he used.

Four years ago the fact that one candidate supported partial-birth abortion seemed almost too surrealistically horrible to accept. Now we have one who, make no mistake, has no problem with outright infanticide.

John Paul II spent the latter portion of his life fighting this Culture of Death, to use the appropriate phrase he coined. This is what’s at stake here. It’s an entire philosophy. It’s paganism vs. Christ, pure and simple. This is the way it was in the beginning - what put Christians against the Romans - and little has changed at the core.

Why the apparent fear to make strong statements on the part of some? What of the innocent lives that are literally torn apart, and the souls that are being destroyed? Isn’t it worth stepping on a few toes now & then?

After reading the links below, I am retracting my last statement on the possibility of voting for pro-choice candidatees. I’m sorry if it disquieted anyone.

As an individual I cannot vote for anyone who is pro-choice. But as a Franciscan I am bound to uphold the position of the Church with blind obedience. There are no ifs or buts, regardless of what I think or feel. This is the Church’s position and must be obeyed.

As our holy father Francis taught and mandated, "the bishops and the Pope must be obeyed by all Catholics, regardless of our feelings or opinions.

Franciscans do not have opinions, for opinions are posessions. Our vocation is to teach the world, through our way of life, that the only opinion that is of any value is that of Christ and the Church."

In this case, the Church has spoken loudly and clearly. End of discussion.

Here is the link in case anyone wants to read a good breakdown of the whys to this question.

origin.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Fraternally,

JR

 

[YipYupYep]

What good would actually come of a layperson like me labelling another Christian “heretic?”

Here is what it would accomplish. It would prevent the pro abortion person from living in denial and bring into sharp focus what they really are. False Catholics, hypocrites and it seems to me, according to the definition in Wikapedia, a hieratic, if they publicly defend Pro Choice.

Will the local parish kick out the person that* I *label “heretic?” Will the parish priests refuse to serve Communion to the person that Cat called “heretic?”

He should.

Will they not be allowed to sing in the choir or attend the Knights of Columbus Pancake Breakfast anymore? Will they be shunned by all the “non-heretics” in the local parish?

They should not.

Will my labelling of the person help me to show them the Love of Christ? Will they grow closer to Christ because* I call them “heretic?” Will they repent and renounce their sins, seek absolution, do penance, and strive for sainthood because I *labelled them “heretic?”

Lets try and see what happins.

It seems to me that the approach of calling another Christian “heretic” has a lot of “me” and “I” in it. That doesn’t sound right at all.

Your wrong.

Wouldn’t it be more constructive and charitable to use the approach in James 5: 19-20, and tell them and keep telling them, kindly and humbly, with tears in our eyes, but firmly and with conviction, that their beliefs are “contrary to Church teachings and that these beliefs put them in danger of believing in a heresy”?

]

Wrong again.

One more question–do laypeople have the right to call another Christian a heretic, or is that determination to be made only by the Church (Magisterium)? Thank you.

Okay, then. This thing about a lay person labeling another Christian a hieratic. That’s pretty good. Don’t witness for your faith, its unchristian ? Sure, no problem. Take the easy way out and just go about your business. Leave it to someone else? Look the other way?

 

[puzzleannie]

no a heretic is one who formally propounds and teaches true heresy. Personal opinion does not make you a heretic. and it is for the local bishop or the Holy See to pronounce on the validity of what one is teaching, for instance, the bishop will refuse to give approval to a textbook that is teaching heresy. It is not for Chrisitians to hurl as epithets at each other.

 

[YipYupYep]

no a heretic is one who formally propounds and teaches true heresy. Personal opinion does not make you a heretic. and it is for the local bishop or the Holy See to pronounce on the validity of what one is teaching, for instance, the bishop will refuse to give approval to a textbook that is teaching heresy. It is not for Chrisitians to hurl as epithets at each other.

Sure, stay back in the rear up on the high goound and let the other guy face the fire down in the trences.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

After reading the links below, I am retracting my last statement on the possibility of voting for pro-choice candidatees. I’m sorry if it disquieted anyone.

As an individual I cannot vote for anyone who is pro-choice. But as a Franciscan I am bound to uphold the position of the Church with blind obedience. There are no ifs or buts, regardless of what I think or feel. This is the Church’s position and must be obeyed.

As our holy father Francis taught and mandated, "the bishops and the Pope must be obeyed by all Catholics, regardless of our feelings or opinions.

Franciscans do not have opinions, for opinions are posessions. Our vocation is to teach the world, through our way of life, that the only opinion that is of any value is that of Christ and the Church."

In this case, the Church has spoken loudly and clearly. End of discussion.

Here is the link in case anyone wants to read a good breakdown of the whys to this question.

origin.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Fraternally,

JR

Way to go, JR!

Many look up to you here, so thanks for posting that.

 

[redrosetea]

What would Jesus do? What did Jesus say?..He told us in the Sermon on the Mt you can’t serve God and mammon

 

[ethelzguy]

I think they would be a really bad Catholic.

I’m not sure how they could continue to call themselves Catholic.

 

[Timothysis]

I’m not sure how they could continue to call themselves Catholic.

They do it all the time…unfortunately, there are many Catholic Churches full of people every Sunday morning who do not “agree” with the teachings of the Church but still call themselves “Catholic.”

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

no a heretic is one who formally propounds and teaches true heresy. Personal opinion does not make you a heretic. and it is for the local bishop or the Holy See to pronounce on the validity of what one is teaching, for instance, the bishop will refuse to give approval to a textbook that is teaching heresy. It is not for Chrisitians to hurl as epithets at each other.

Annie,

You got the definition of heretic so right in so few words in your first sentence - how does the notion get muddled later on?

Since the definition of ‘heretic’ is indeed one who (repeatedly and obstinately) expounds heresy, and the definition of ‘heresy’ is very simply the denial of a dogma or doctrine of the faith, how is use of the word (heretic) ‘hurling an epithet’? What it is, actually, is a simple, objective observation. Is as simple and non-judgmental as referring to someone as, say, a football fan, or a Norwegian.

You would be correct to say that in some cases it is not so easy to discern heresy. There are cases where it may take a theologian to determine whether a statement or teaching is heretical or not.

Others, however, are as simple as they come. Is it heresy to state that the resurrection never occurred? Thus, is a person who claims this, publicly and repeatedly, a heretic? Is someone who simply points out that such a person is a heretic by the obvious textbook definition being mean, nasty, ‘judgmental’ in an inappropriate sense, or anything of the sort? If a person makes this statement to warn the ignorant or unwary against this person’s false teaching, to do what he can to protect the faith and safeguard souls, sinning in some manner, or overstepping some ‘bound of authority’? The answer is no. Is there necessarily any point in using the word? Maybe, maybe not.

I think your post illustrates why this one particular issue is so muddled - some people cling to the notion that the use of this word is subjective and thus an insult, when in fact that is simply not true. Now, obviously, if somebody used the word intending to insult, or where it was objectively false, or where there was any question as to its accuracy, that would be different - that could well be sinful, and obviously certainly not appropriate. It certainly isn’t a word that should ever be used lightly - it should take something grave, public, and dangerous, I believe.

(And, incidentally, it’s not a word that I’m going to use in these environs to refer to any specific individual, anonymous or not, as per agreement with the moderators.)

It used to be that the Truths of the faith were taken as givens by virtually all the faithful - they were black & white. And thus it was easy to see when someone was denying one. Things are not quite the same nowadays.

 

[ProVobis]

So how does one determine who’s pro choice? By what he says in order to get elected or by the party to which he associates? If by the latter, there should be reminders that is was under Republican watch that Roe vs Wade became the law of the land, and now they want to change it but can’t and blame the other party for it so which is the better party? Just some food for thought here.

 

[I_Believe]

Pro Choice Catholic ?

There is no such animal.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

So how does one determine who’s pro choice? By what he says in order to get elected or by the party to which he associates? If by the latter, there should be reminders that is was under Republican watch that Roe vs Wade became the law of the land, and now they want to change it but can’t and blame the other party for it so which is the better party? Just some food for thought here.

Sentiment appreciated - neither party faithfully represents the Catholic ideal by a longshot - yet right now one party’s platform is a virtual what’s what of the Culture of Death while the other is, if not quite the opposite, on the other side.

I understand that the aforementioned party even removed language stating that they wished abortion to be “rare” from their platform this year. Such language is offensive to the feminist elite. They are no longer really even interested in the pretense of valuing the lives of the unborn, or others’ society deems expendable.