The question of Church authority

[Zhenia]

Here is something I need to straighten out: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that a Catholic is bound under pain of mortal sin to accept WHATEVER the Church leaders teach, even if it goes against what Catholics always believed in the past?

 

[Will_S]

Here is something I need to straighten out: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that a Catholic is bound under pain of mortal sin to accept WHATEVER the Church leaders teach, even if it goes against what Catholics always believed in the past?

I’m going to give the short answer: no.

However, it really depends on the level of authority with which the doctrines in question, both now and in the past, are being taught.

I’m not aware of any dogmatically defined teachings of the past being currently denied by the magisterium.

Do you have any specific teachings or examples you’d like to ask about?

 

[corsair]

Good answer, Will S.

What really bothers me is that some of my friends claim that what ever the “Vatican” says must be believed. I disagree with that statement. There are lots of people working in the Vatican that make statements. These may or may not be true. However, if the Holy Father makes a statement then I’ll listen respectfully; but even then, we are not required to believe it. If the Holy Father proclaims something as Doctrine, then Yes we must believe.

Having said all of that, I always listen to the Holy Father and try to obey his wishes and directions.

 

[drforjc]

A great explanation is found in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.

Read especially paragraph #25

Lumen Gentium

 

[Zhenia]

The reason I ask is because I remember the 1970s when we were told by the church that it was sinful to attend the Tridentine Mass (the one that had been the RC Mass for centuries). Now they say its allowed?

Eating meat on Friday was regarded as sinful before Vatican II, now its not.

Unbaptized babies went to limbo, now they say they go to Heaven.

 

[estesbob]

The reason I ask is because I remember the 1970s when we were told by the church that it was sinful to attend the Tridentine Mass (the one that had been the RC Mass for centuries). Now they say its allowed?

Eating meat on Friday was regarded as sinful before Vatican II, now its not.

The eating of meat on Friday was not the sin-it was a intentional and direct disobedience of the church that was a sin.

Unbaptized babies went to limbo, now they say they go to Heaven.

. The church never said unbaptized babies went to limbo. . There was over the last 2000 years and continues to the speculation as to what does happen unbaptized babies and limbo was for a long time postulated as one of the possibilities but was never promulgated resonated doctrine.

 

[drforjc]

The reason I ask is because I remember the 1970s when we were told by the church that it was sinful to attend the Tridentine Mass (the one that had been the RC Mass for centuries). Now they say its allowed?

Eating meat on Friday was regarded as sinful before Vatican II, now its not.

Unbaptized babies went to limbo, now they say they go to Heaven.

1. It was never forbidden to attend a legitimately offered Tridentine mass. There were restrictions on priests as to whether they could celebrate it. This has now been clarified (first by John Paul 11, now even more forcefully by Benedict XV1.
2. Meat on Fridays is subject to canon law (and thus is changeable) and when the new 1983 Code of Canon Law came into force, the decision to require abstinence or not was largely delegated to conferences of bishops. In the US, it was made optional (though the practice of some form of penance as a substitute was strongly encouraged). Interestingly, in Great Britain they recently reinstituted the mandatory abstinence from meat on Fridays.
3. Limbo is still not defined. It was certainly common teaching that unbaptized babies go to limbo but it had never been formally defined. Recent theological thought has tended to deny limbo but, again, neither its existence nor nonexistence has ever been formally defined.

 

[laszlo]

The reason I ask is because I remember the 1970s when we were told by the church that it was sinful to attend the Tridentine Mass (the one that had been the RC Mass for centuries). Now they say its allowed?

Eating meat on Friday was regarded as sinful before Vatican II, now its not.

Unbaptized babies went to limbo, now they say they go to Heaven.

The Church never said that to attend Trident Mass is sinful, only to attend Masses of presumed or real priest who are outside of the Church (women-priest, excommunicated priests).

The abstinence laws belong to the binding and loosing power of the Church, can be changed any time

We did not get any detailed revelation about the last thing, either the limbo or the salvation of the unbaptized babies is theological opinion: uncertain.

For the generic question: whatever the Magisterium is teaching (in cases of faith and moral including the Liturgy) is binding. Not everything is infallible, most teachings are subject to change, but it is binding. The living Magisterium is he only acceptable interpreter of the truth, as the Sola Scriptura is heresy, so is the absolutization of the frozen Tradition.

 

[Will_S]

The reason I ask is because I remember the 1970s when we were told by the church that it was sinful to attend the Tridentine Mass (the one that had been the RC Mass for centuries). Now they say its allowed?

Eating meat on Friday was regarded as sinful before Vatican II, now its not.

Unbaptized babies went to limbo, now they say they go to Heaven.

Anyone who said that it was sinful, as a layperson, to attend the Tridentine Mass was a liar, but I don’t doubt it was said by some. Fortunately that sort of thing is no longer possible now that the Pope has made it quite clear that A) The Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, B) All priests of the latin rite may celebrate the Tridentine Mass if they wish, C) The desires of the faithful to assist at Tridentine Masses must be met to the extent that it is possible.

Eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin in the past because the law of the Church required the faithful to abstain from the consumption of flesh meat on Fridays under pain of mortal sin. The sin wasn’t the eating of meat in and of itself, rather it was the willful disobedience and disregard of the law. Today, the law of the Church requires Catholics to do penance on Fridays, with the abstinence from meat being the preferred penance, but other penances may be substituted. Whether this requirement to do penance is binding under pain of sin is a debated point and – here’s where one of the biggest current problems with the Church comes into play – the Church seems to show no interest in clearing up the question by stating definitively one way or another, leaving the faithful to hear different things from different priests and debate the matter among themselves.

The question of unbaptized babies is one that has never been definitively answered by the Church and, in fact, never can be definitively answered by the Church, because it is not a part of Divine revelation. It is true that there is currently a desire in the Church to encourage the idea that unbaptized babies go to Heaven, however this is not an can not ever be a definitive teaching. In the past the Church has taught authoritatively that no unbaptized person can enjoy the beatific vision in Heaven. This teaching, however, though authoritative, is not de fide or dogmatic, as far as I know. The short of it is not contrary to the faith to believe any of 1) unbaptized babies suffer the torments of hell for all eternity, 2) unbaptized babies enjoy perfect natural happiness for all eternity, 3) unbaptized babies enjoy the beatific vision for all eternity. Personally, I do not believe that unbaptized babies go to Heaven because, the belief that unbaptized babies do go to Heaven is, in effect, an attack on the dogma of original sin. All people are conceived in a state of separation from God, and have no right to Heaven. The only way we know of to overcome this state is baptism.

 

[Zhenia]

Will S, Back in the 1970s many Traditional Catholics were told that it was forbidden to attend the Tridentine Mass. Maybe the Church didn’t say that, but many people believed it. It was horrible…whole families broke up over it, because the half that said it was prohibited refused to have anything to do with the ones who attended.

Until B16 I never thought I’d ever hear a Pope praise the TLM again, or say its perfectly acceptable to hear Mass at one.

 

[Will_S]

Will S, Back in the 1970s many Traditional Catholics were told that it was forbidden to attend the Tridentine Mass. Maybe the Church didn’t say that, but many people believed it. It was horrible…whole families broke up over it, because the half that said it was prohibited refused to have anything to do with the ones who attended.

Until B16 I never thought I’d ever hear a Pope praise the TLM again, or say its perfectly acceptable to hear Mass at one.

I know Zhenia. I know the history although I didn’t live through it. It’s still happening in some places even though the Pope has made it clear that the traditional Mass is to be provided to the faithful that desire it.

Just recently I exchanged messages with a person here who has been attending Mass in someone’s garage because the local clergy absolutely refuse to allow the traditional Mass.

However, those people who said that were liars. Just like the ones who said that the Second Vatican Council required the priest to face the people, required the statues to ripped out and tossed in the dumpster, required the high altar to be jackhammered and replaced with a coffee table. It was all lies.

 

[Zhenia]

I know Zhenia. I know the history although I didn’t live through it. It’s still happening in some places even though the Pope has made it clear that the traditional Mass is to be provided to the faithful that desire it.

Just recently I exchanged messages with a person here who has been attending Mass in someone’s garage because the local clergy absolutely refuse to allow the traditional Mass.

However, those people who said that were liars. Just like the ones who said that the Second Vatican Council required the priest to face the people, required the statues to ripped out and tossed in the dumpster, required the high altar to be jackhammered and replaced with a coffee table. It was all lies.

You know, I have studied many different religions, with particular attention paid to how liberalism has infected so many of them (with the notable exceptions of Chasidic Judaism and Shiite Islam). They all start the same way: a little innovation here, a little innovation there, and then when they think its safe to come out of the woodwork (like right after V2), they come out whole hog bozo.

I also see it in the brainwashing that goes on in the media…subtleties here, subtleties there, similar to turning up the fire slowly so the frog in the pot doesn’t realize he’s being cooked until its too late.

Pope St Pius X wrote an encyclical against modernism in the early 1900s, long before Vatican II. There must have been a reason why he felt the need to write it then, back when everything was still supposedly “good”. This destruction of the RCC was a very long time in the making; Vatican II just made the destroyers feel the freedom to finally come out of the closet.

 

[Crumpy]

I think it’s hard to discuss this question, because the Church doesn’t change its teaching (doctrine) to any extent that I am aware of.

If you read the new advent entry on gambling, you will see in that boring long article that the church was against gambling for centuries, up to and including the councl of Trent. But, then, as I like to say, some theologians seem to have pencil-whipped the issue and then it was OK to gamble.

The article says it was up to the local bishop to give the guidance on this, but when in your lifetime did you ever hear your bishop give any guidance on this, or remind you what the long-standing guidance is?

the Church is the official interpreter of scripture, so, in this sense, we have to listen to how the Church does that.

In the Second Vatican Council, the fathers of the church said we were to support the social media as much as it is involved in the evanglization of the world. do you do this? do you hear anybody remining you of that duty?

We seem to be reminded about just a handful of things like Lenten obligations, meat or not, etc. There’s a WHOLE lot more of teaching that just doesn’t get dusted off very often.
– for whatever reason.

 

[Will_S]

Pope St Pius X wrote an encyclical against modernism in the early 1900s, long before Vatican II. There must have been a reason why he felt the need to write it then, back when everything was still supposedly “good”. This destruction of the RCC was a very long time in the making; Vatican II just made the destroyers feel the freedom to finally come out of the closet.

Pope St. Pius X was a brilliant and determined man. Although the man in the pew didn’t know what was going on in academic circles, Pius X did, and he took action. But no man lives forever, and not all of his successors were so firm. And, of course there were wars and other problems that distracted attention from the corruption that was growing in the Church. There is no doubt that, at Vatican II, the modernists thought they had won.

But then again, when Christ was hanging on the cross, the devil thought he had won too.

The error of the modernists lay in the fact that the Church cannot be made something other than what God founded it to be. They cannot fundamentally change the nature of the Church. They can sow as much chaff as they want, but the wheat is still there and The Lord is still the master of the field.

And of course, they did not know that the aftermath of Vatican II would bring forth the tradtional Catholic movement, which began as small groups of people hearing Mass in hotel rooms and garages, celebrated by priests who were kicked out of their parishes and suspended for refusing to give up the traditional Mass. A movement which is growing, slowly, but steadily, and which is made up of people, both priests and laymen, who will never, ever give up.

 

[JReducation]

Here is something I need to straighten out: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that a Catholic is bound under pain of mortal sin to accept WHATEVER the Church leaders teach, even if it goes against what Catholics always believed in the past?

The short answer is that every Catholic is bound under pain of grave sin to believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals.

He is also bound to obey what the Church commands either through law: Canona Law. rules and constitutions of religious orders, diocesan policies, laws enacted by conferences of bishop, directives by the local bishop or directives from the pope himself.

The severity of the disobedience depends on several factors:

1. The gravity of the matter being commanded.
2. The knowledge of the person who disobeys.
3. The authority of the person doing the commanding
4. The conditions under which the command is issued.

Number four is a little tricky. This is where many people get all caught and tangled with statements made by Popes Pius V, IX and X. If one does not understand the conditions under which a decree is made, it is very easy to over generalize it and to miss the intentions of the command or statement. That’s why many people have problems with men like Popes Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

These men look back at what the three Piuses (is that a name? ), what Popes Pius V, IX, and X said and wrote, because they are scholars and lawyers, they know what these documetns meant, how they were to be applied, what part of the document was based on infallible truth and which part was a response to a specific situation that either no longer exists or has changed so that you have to change your position or maintain the position, but change how you execute it. We must believe everthing the Church teaches and we must obey whatever legitimate authority asks us to obey.

Legitimacy is not based on wisdom or holiness. The bishop can be a fool and a sinner, but he remains the bishop. Therefore, whatever policies and laws he sets for his diocese are to be obeyed. His authority does not depend on his wisdom and holiness. It comes from his office as Successor of the Apostles and head of the particular Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sojo]

Br. JR, you are always so helpful. Could I have just a bit of clarification on this:

“The short answer is that every Catholic is bound under pain of grave sin to believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals.”

And here is my specific question (and sorry if this is a bit long). I converted to Catholicism and Christianity as an adult. I was a non-practicing Jew, and my husband was an Agnostic. One could say I was seized by the Holy Spirit, and it was a grueling and painful 3 year conversion.

Anyhow, towards the end of my RCIA period (2 years), I met with the priest for an interview of sorts and then confession prior to baptism at Easter Vigil. My question for him was that there were two things I still had trouble accepting.

First he took me through the Nicene Creed point by point. No problem - I totally and completely accepted each item (and this was no small order - it took me 3 years and a lot of prayer and study to get to that point!)

Then the priest asked me for the two items I had a problem with. The priest listened to me carefully and asked, “despite your inability to ‘believe’ these two things, can you accept them, live by them and follow them in obedience to the authority of the Church?” I said I could.

The two things were abortion and contraception. So he went further and asked if I was prepared to continue to pray and study the Church’s stance on these issues, and never try to promulgate or support contraception or abortion to anyone in public or private. I said I could.

I went on to explain that I wanted to be in full conformance with the beliefs of the Church, that I was entirely sure that the Church in its wisdom was correct and that it was only my own misunderstanding that was holding me back from “believing” these things were wrong. I assured him that I accepted that these were sins.

So we prayed together and he decided that my sincere desire to believe and my promise to continue to work on my disbelief was enough. And he permitted me to proceed.

Naturally, the Lord had me firmly in His hand. Several years after this, I became pregnant with a child with Down syndrome. I knew in advance, and chose to keep the child at great risk (my family nearly disowned me and still does not support my decision not to abort). It cost us family, money, freedom - so much. But suddenly I GOT it! Life is sacred. All life is so precious and sacred. Abortion for any reason is murder. Contraception is wrong. It was like someone turned on the light - how could I have not seen it all before. I BELIEVED!

Now I am fully and completely in belief and acceptance of all the Church’s teachings. But if I hadn’t been a regular and devout Catholic and Mass goer for all those years before my pregnancy, the outcome might have been very different. So naturally, I thank the Lord this priest allowed me to enter the Church. I am so completely in love with Christ and His Church… but I had to be honest with the priest.

Was the decision of the priest wrong? Might one say that one is not required to BELIEVE all Church teachings as much as to say SINCERELY DESIRES TO BELIEVE BUT NONETHELESS TOTALLY ACCEPTS the teachings of the Church?

Belief is not always something that one has control over. But obedience and acceptance and promises are things that even an adult can commit to.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, you are always so helpful. Could I have just a bit of clarification on this:

“The short answer is that every Catholic is bound under pain of grave sin to believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals.”

And here is my specific question (and sorry if this is a bit long). I converted to Catholicism and Christianity as an adult. I was a non-practicing Jew, and my husband was an Agnostic. One could say I was seized by the Holy Spirit, and it was a grueling and painful 3 year conversion.

Anyhow, towards the end of my RCIA period (2 years), I met with the priest for an interview of sorts and then confession prior to baptism at Easter Vigil. My question for him was that there were two things I still had trouble accepting.

First he took me through the Nicene Creed point by point. No problem - I totally and completely accepted each item (and this was no small order - it took me 3 years and a lot of prayer and study to get to that point!)

Then the priest asked me for the two items I had a problem with. The priest listened to me carefully and asked, “despite your inability to ‘believe’ these two things, can you accept them, live by them and follow them in obedience to the authority of the Church?” I said I could.

The two things were abortion and contraception. So he went further and asked if I was prepared to continue to pray and study the Church’s stance on these issues, and never try to promulgate or support contraception or abortion to anyone in public or private. I said I could.

I went on to explain that I wanted to be in full conformance with the beliefs of the Church, that I was entirely sure that the Church in its wisdom was correct and that it was only my own misunderstanding that was holding me back from “believing” these things were wrong. I assured him that I accepted that these were sins.

So we prayed together and he decided that my sincere desire to believe and my promise to continue to work on my disbelief was enough. And he permitted me to proceed.

Was the decision of the priest wrong? Might one say that one is not required to BELIEVE all Church teachings as much as to say SINCERELY DESIRES TO BELIEVE BUT NONETHELESS TOTALLY ACCEPTS the teachings of the Church?

Belief is not always something that one has control over. But obedience and acceptance and promises are things that even an adult can commit to.

I understand your journey. I too am a Jew.

Go back to the Torah. Did Abraham really feel that he had to sacrifice his son? Was his heart in it? He had waited a long time to have a son. Did he understand the logic of G-d’s request? Isaac kept asking him questions all the way up the hill and Abraham kept giving him evasive answers. He could not bring himself to tell the boy the truth. He was struggling with it. It was not just that Isaac would run away. Maybe that would have happened and maybe not. What is true is that Abraham could not give Isaac a straight answer, because there was no rational answer. Adonai wanted this sacrifice and he was going to comply. It was an assent of the will, not the heart or the intellect. His heart was not in it and he did not understand. However, if the Lord wanted it, that was enough for Abraham.

We who are Jewish probably understand the depth and spiritual significance of these stories better than the Gentile Christians. I would suggest that you go back to the Torah and the Talmud and look at what our anscestors taught us about belief. Did they not teach us that belief requirs compliance?

Do not lose that part of your identity. Our Jewishness strengthens our Catholicism. It can actually help others.

The reason that Jews cannot convert to Christianity is because in our secular society, compliance and submission are dirty words. Judaism has fallen to the dictatorship of secularism. Our Hebrew brothers and sisters cannot see that faith is often blind assent of the will. Look at Moses. He did not want to go to Pharoah. We Jews know that he was a reluctant liberator and a rather cranky one too. He goes up to a mountain and disappears for several weeks, then comes down and gets ticked off because the folks are out of control. So what does he do? He throws the bloody stones at them. Common sense tells you that if you leave a bunch of nomads alone in a desert, kniowing that they don’t have much of a religious background, because they grew up among pagans, they will probably get into trouble. It’s like the parents who go out for the evening and leave the key in the keyhole of the liquor cabinet and then are shocked that the kids are plasterred. Give me a break! You couldn’t fore see that possibility? What happened next?

Moses went back and did the whole thing all over again. His heart was not in it. It made no sense to him, because he didn’t trust his own people and didn’t trust himself. However, he trusted G-d. He consented. That’s an assent of the will. It’s the highest form of faith.

Your priest had you well pegged. You may not have been an active Jew, but something from our people and our history took root in you or you would not have followed a very noble Jewish tradition, to assent even when your heart and mind are not sold on the idea. Yet, you trust.

That’s why Jews can be slaves today, bombed tomorrow, and the next day we’re having a big dinner party. Belief is about trust, not reason or feeling. It’s nice when we feel and even nicer when we can make sense out of something. But it’s heroic when we assent even though we don’t feel and can’t make sense out of anything. If one reads the Torah and the Talmud correctly, one ends up a Catholic.

You said, “Naturally, the Lord took me firmly by the hand.” Just like Abraham and Moses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Zhenia]

That was a very beautiful story of God working in your life, to enable you to understand the preciousness and sanctity of unborn human life, esp. those children who are differently-abled. I had tried to adopt a child with Down Syndrome many years ago, but the waiting list was very long. I have worked with these children and I often think that perhaps God chose to send angels to earth in human form, and these children are it. No, they are not “perfect” (what does that mean, anyway?), but they are genuine blessings from our Heavenly Father.

I have a friend who is of Jewish background; she became a Catholic a few years ago and just to show you the difference in people even of the same background: she had no problem at all accepting the RCC stance on abortion and even contraception–she was a pro-life activist! In fact it was the pro-life movement that led her to the RCC. Her problem was with some of the basic theological aspects of Christianity (the Trinity, Deity of Christ, and so on). But it all finally worked out after much prayer and contemplation.

On a personal note (and please don’t take this the wrong way), I have noticed that many Jews are stridently pro-abortion. My friend grieves over this, and so do I. Do you have any idea why this is? Orthodox Jews are pro-life, but as for most of the others…

Br. JR, you are always so helpful. Could I have just a bit of clarification on this:

“The short answer is that every Catholic is bound under pain of grave sin to believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals.”

And here is my specific question (and sorry if this is a bit long). I converted to Catholicism and Christianity as an adult. I was a non-practicing Jew, and my husband was an Agnostic. One could say I was seized by the Holy Spirit, and it was a grueling and painful 3 year conversion.

Anyhow, towards the end of my RCIA period (2 years), I met with the priest for an interview of sorts and then confession prior to baptism at Easter Vigil. My question for him was that there were two things I still had trouble accepting.

First he took me through the Nicene Creed point by point. No problem - I totally and completely accepted each item (and this was no small order - it took me 3 years and a lot of prayer and study to get to that point!)

Then the priest asked me for the two items I had a problem with. The priest listened to me carefully and asked, “despite your inability to ‘believe’ these two things, can you accept them, live by them and follow them in obedience to the authority of the Church?” I said I could.

The two things were abortion and contraception. So he went further and asked if I was prepared to continue to pray and study the Church’s stance on these issues, and never try to promulgate or support contraception or abortion to anyone in public or private. I said I could.

I went on to explain that I wanted to be in full conformance with the beliefs of the Church, that I was entirely sure that the Church in its wisdom was correct and that it was only my own misunderstanding that was holding me back from “believing” these things were wrong. I assured him that I accepted that these were sins.

So we prayed together and he decided that my sincere desire to believe and my promise to continue to work on my disbelief was enough. And he permitted me to proceed.

Naturally, the Lord had me firmly in His hand. Several years after this, I became pregnant with a child with Down syndrome. I knew in advance, and chose to keep the child at great risk (my family nearly disowned me and still does not support my decision not to abort). It cost us family, money, freedom - so much. But suddenly I GOT it! Life is sacred. All life is so precious and sacred. Abortion for any reason is murder. Contraception is wrong. It was like someone turned on the light - how could I have not seen it all before. I BELIEVED!

Now I am fully and completely in belief and acceptance of all the Church’s teachings. But if I hadn’t been a regular and devout Catholic and Mass goer for all those years before my pregnancy, the outcome might have been very different. So naturally, I thank the Lord this priest allowed me to enter the Church. I am so completely in love with Christ and His Church… but I had to be honest with the priest.

Was the decision of the priest wrong? Might one say that one is not required to BELIEVE all Church teachings as much as to say SINCERELY DESIRES TO BELIEVE BUT NONETHELESS TOTALLY ACCEPTS the teachings of the Church?

Belief is not always something that one has control over. But obedience and acceptance and promises are things that even an adult can commit to.

 

[sojo]

Thank you Br. JR! That was extremely helpful - hit the nail right on the head. Just like some of us are forced to make a decision to love the unlovable and learn that love is not just a warm fuzzy feeling but an action, a decision of the will.

And despite my mother’s rather lukewarm practice, she and my other, more devout relatives and many friends (grew up in a community with predominantly Jewish and Catholic friends) did influence me greatly. It is one of the wonders of Judaism that even the non-practicing Jews have certainly cultural norms that are passed on as sacrosanct. The exposure of the young to the holocaust horrors and how it relates to trials in the old testament. The spirit of endurance and hanging in till the end, even if it means wandering in circles for 40 years. The hope in the future (an earthly one, not necessarily heaven) - Next Year in Jerusalem!! Doing what one believes is required even if we don’t feel it or understand it (Abraham, Jonah, Job). These things do make up who you are and how you approach all things in life.

Your reply was extremely helpful in clarifying exactly what you meant by us all being required to “believe.”

 

[sojo]

For Zhenia, in reply to your question, “On a personal note (and please don’t take this the wrong way), I have noticed that many Jews are stridently pro-abortion. My friend grieves over this, and so do I. Do you have any idea why this is? Orthodox Jews are pro-life, but as for most of the others…”

I’m no authority, but in my experience this might have to do with a totally different conception of life after death and the omnipotence of the Creator. I’m sure JR has a more educated handle on this.

But here goes - unlike Christians, Judaism does not have a firm history in the afterlife. Indeed, many Jews do not even believe in heaven. Most of my family comes from a long line of Jews that while not totally disbelieving in an afterlife, really just refused to entertain thought of it. It is a pragmatic religion centered on the here and now and leave the murky remainder up to the Creator. Growing up I asked my mother what happened when we die, did we go to heaven (influenced by my Catholic friends). She said, no, our faith doesn’t really believe in a heaven, but it would be nice. She believed that we just return to God, end of story. The Old Testament was not about heaven.

My family was very dedicated to works of charity, often to considerable sacrifice. But these mitzvahs, holy works of kindness, were pleasing to God NOW, not towards some holy accounting for how we would be treated after death. When you perform acts of kindness, you are modeling yourself after and in some tiny way joining yourself with the great Creator of all. And it was understood that was enough - no further promise of anything implied or required.

And if the Creator is all powerful and all knowing, there is no worries that a baby killed in the womb would be in any sense “wasted.” The soul would not be inbued into a baby that was going to be killed in the womb - end of story (at least for many of my relatives). So, no harm, no foul.

Finally, a long history of hardship, a lack of time spent worrying about the afterlife, and a firm dedication to keeping the Hebraic tribe - the Chosen People - alive at any cost, often throughout history through great pain, suffering and despair, as resulted in a very pragmatic culture. You do what you need to do to survive and prosper and carry on those all important tribal genes. At any cost. If you can’t afford a child, or that child would be a burden, it is “OK” to take care of that “problem.” Similarly, if you can’t have a baby, have one by your maid (Old Testament). Just very practical and all about dealing with the here and now.

Of course the orthodox Jews, who spend more time contemplating and debating the Torah have a more reasoned response and do abhor abortion. But for more modern Jews, the pragmatism remains long after the interest in what the Torah can teach us has dissolved.

Only my opinion - I’m no Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination.