U.S. Bishops Answer Democrats on Abortion and Communion

[Ender]

“may be considered” is hardly a statement of scientific certainty. chronolab is a diagnostic laboratory, not an organization devoted to embryology, and their atlas is hardly representative of “science” as an enormous body of knowledge and inquiry. i don’t see any endorsement of their atlas by anyone else in the medical community.

When do you believe life begins and can you provide any scientific quotes to support your position?

Before you respond, look at the web site below for more specific references. I really don’t think there is any disagreement within the scientific community about when life begins. This quote pretty well sums up the position of science on the topic: “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.” Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Ender

 

[fix]

the separation of church and state in this country demands that politicians respect the right of members of different religions to disagree, even on such fundamental and spiritually challenging issues as abortion. people who support abortion rights have equally strong moral convictions, and should have the freedom to act and/or practice medicine within the (different) bounds of their consciences.

But it is a matter of the right to life not simply a sectarian matter. As for conscience that is not supreme. Can we imagine claiming one may approve of slavery because one’s conscience claims so?

 

[catholicbuckeye]

i must respectfully disagree with the bishops.

the separation of church and state in this country demands that politicians respect the right of members of different religions to disagree, even on such fundamental and spiritually challenging issues as abortion. people who support abortion rights have equally strong moral convictions, and should have the freedom to act and/or practice medicine within the (different) bounds of their consciences.

you may vehemently disagree with their position, and that’s absolutely okay. i don’t think any politician, catholic or no, believes that abortion is fun or morally neutral, and most are personally opposed to it. as a matter of law, however, their first responsibility is to protect the rights of others who disagree.

in china, as we know, women are frequently forced to have abortions because the state believes it’s morally necessary – to keep population growth in check. there’s no protection for religious expression in china, so those who vehemently disagree on religious or other moral grounds don’t have any rights in the matter. this is obviously wrong and horrible and sickening and unconscionable, and god help those families who are suffering and god help those officials who cause the suffering.

our separation of church and state (with its two elements: congress can’t force you to practice a religion, nor can they forbid you to practice a religion) is meant to prevent such awful situation as these. it’s painful, but in order to keep our country from one extreme, we have to stay away from the other extreme as well.

(ducking head to avoid objects hurled in my direction)

Just curious Emily - if a Baptized Catholic who willingly became a member of the Nazi Party circa 1938 and decided he would help to facilitate or enable the state sponsored holocaust, should that person have been allowed to continue to receive Communion under the premise that government and religon shouldn’t mix, even if you vehemently disagree with that position?

 

[bilop]

i’ve known women whose hearts were broken by their abortions, but who felt that the decision was best for other people – their other children or even the baby itself. they may have been misguided in your opinion, but they were not indulging in “selfishness”.

[empahsis added]

How could being aborted be better for the baby?

 

[catholicbuckeye]

When do you believe life begins and can you provide any scientific quotes to support your position?

Before you respond, look at the web site below for more specific references. I really don’t think there is any disagreement within the scientific community about when life begins. This quote pretty well sums up the position of science on the topic: “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.” Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Ender

Exactly. If you took 100 pro-choice people and asked them each separately when life begins, you may get 100 different answers. If you ask the same question to 100 pro-life people, you will get 1. Conception. Good to know science agrees as well.

 

[Amolibri]

Emily, I must say you are a valiant person, but this is not an issue that is open to any dialogue. Not here. The points you make are reasoned, but you are not going to get anywhere. Just the attitude that: I don’t have to hear them out…makes it totally impossible to carry on a discussion any further. Obvious to me.
It’s been my observation that more of the rabid (I don’t want to hear anything) are men.

How is it compassionate to a dying woman is it to write:“There is no reason on earth that justifies an abortion; it is not my obligation to hear out the pro-choice side; it is my obligation to oppose it.” I could not imagine any woman or doctor writing such a statement.

 

[fix]

Emily, I must say you are a valiant person, but this is not an issue that is open to any dialogue. Not here. The points you make are reasoned, but you are not going to get anywhere. Just the attitude that: I don’t have to hear them out…makes it totally impossible to carry on a discussion any further. Obvious to me.
It’s been my observation that more of the rabid (I don’t want to hear anything) are men.

How is it compassionate to a dying woman is it to write:“There is no reason on earth that justifies an abortion; it is not my obligation to hear out the pro-choice side; it is my obligation to oppose it.” I could not imagine any woman or doctor writing such a statement.

When may an innocent life be intentionally ended?

 

[Amolibri]

I’ve just said that this is not a topic that can be discussed with people who use statements like you just have. We had a very long thread about ectopic pregnancy a while back…and even that got heated. You are just baiting at this point. When the life of the mother is in imminent danger is one such circumstance…and that is not for YOU to decide. I will not answer further. :console:

Emily:thumbsup:

 

[fix]

I’ve just said that this is not a topic that can be discussed with people who use statements like you just have.

You mean to define reality as it is?

We had a very long thread about ectopic pregnancy a while back…and even that got heated. You are just baiting at this point.

No, not baiting. I am trying to put the issue in perspective. Would you diminsh the life of the baby to save another?

When the life of the mother is in imminent danger is one such circumstance…

Why? Why must one be killed to save another?

and that is not for YOU to decide. I will not answer further. :console:

Emily:thumbsup:

I am not the author of Life. Perhaps you can show why God desires we take another’s life?

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Emily, I must say you are a valiant person, but this is not an issue that is open to any dialogue. Not here. The points you make are reasoned, but you are not going to get anywhere. Just the attitude that: I don’t have to hear them out…makes it totally impossible to carry on a discussion any further. Obvious to me.
It’s been my observation that more of the rabid (I don’t want to hear anything) are men.

How is it compassionate to a dying woman is it to write:“There is no reason on earth that justifies an abortion; it is not my obligation to hear out the pro-choice side; it is my obligation to oppose it.” I could not imagine any woman or doctor writing such a statement.

The origin of the thread really had more to do with whether or not those who do not follow the rules of the Church can consider themselves in Communion with the Church. What I think is funny is that people who are not members of the Catholic Church seem to think their opinions on who should or shouldn’t be in the Church carry any weight whatsoever. I wouldn’t presume to tell the president of a book club that I am not involved with who should or should not be in that club. The same goes for a faith. Abortion is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Period. There is no popular vote on morals or outsider opinions on Catholic morality. The murder of a baby is immoral.

But back to your topic, trying to justify abortion on the whole by saying it should be done out of compassion in the case where the life of the mother is threatened is really stretching. Here are the stats on why abortions are procured:

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

6% occur because of potential health problems to either mother or child. My guess would be the reason for abortion being a threat to the life of the mother is much much less than 6%. So, do you support the abortion of 50,000,000 x 93% = 46,500,000 babies out of convenience since 1973 on the premise of saving the mother’s life (most likely in less than 1% of all cases)?

Say tomorrow Congress said “out of compassion” they would enact a law whereby if you had three doctors to testify that the only way to save a mother’s life would be to have an abortion then that woman could have an abortion, otherwise abortion in all other circumstances would be considered illegal, would you support that law? Just curious.

 

[Amolibri]

Look, this problem is much larger than solving it by making criminals out of people. Our society continues to glorify sexual attractiveness, and still holds puritannical attitudes about sex. [21 pages on this forum on masturbation] .The titillation, and then shame about sex…with all the media stimulation are clearly conflicting messages.

How does this help to promote good self esteem??–the ultimate weapon against pre-marital sex. Why does the US have such a high rate of teen pregnancy compared to other countries???
I don’t know the answers…I’m only observing the state of our society.

 

[quasimodo]

The church can’t tell the politicians how to vote on issues, but the church has the ABSOLUTE right to control Her Sacraments free of Government interference - that is one of the key meanings of the so called separation of church and state clause.

The church has always taught that in order to recieve Eucharist and the other sacraments you must live a life of metanoia (conversion, state of grace), be in communion with the bishop, and accept the kerygma (teaching) of the church. Pro-abortion politicians probably fail on several counts and are thus may not receive Eucharist according to the teaching the church has had since Apostolic times.

The Pope and Bishops are just re-articulating the Church’s teaching and making it a little more specific to today’s issues.

Someone should ask the politicians how many pages a person can pull out of the catechism and still call themselves a Catholic.

 

[emily47017]

holy moly! it’s a twelve car pileup! is this what’s meant by the term “swarming”?

Emily, I must say you are a valiant person, but this is not an issue that is open to any dialogue.

thanks, amolibri. i wasn’t quite ready to give up yet… but the swarm is more than i have time for.

bye, dante! i’m sure we’ll have a chance to talk again.

blessings to all,
emily

 

[mary_bobo]

This has all been very interesting, but I have a question. Why do people join the forum only to challenge the tenets of the Church?

 

[emily47017]

hi mary,

i joined the forum for support and guidance, but i all too frequently make the mistake of opening my big fat mouth when i disagree…

 

[catholicbuckeye]

if this your approach, perhaps you ought not to be making the claim:

hard to understand a position without hearing it out, no?

yes, and this is the heart of the matter, as i’ve been saying. different religions differ on the question of what harms whom and who harms what and what harm is more harmful to whom… i feel woozy. :hypno:

some people believe very strongly that there are never any situations when abortion is acceptable. it is absolutely totally one hundred percent okay to believe that.

some people believe very strongly that there are exceptions, and that if abortion is outlawed a greater harm will be done to the women who – for millions of reasons – can’t carry a pregnancy to term.

i’m getting weary of whatifs, but what if:

my friend’s mom, mrs. p, went to the doctor and was told that her kidneys were in great danger, and that the prospect of mrs. p spending the rest of her life on dialysis was a greater harm than the death of my future friend, and even though she opposed abortion, nope, sorry, the state had to intervene on behalf of her kidneys.

the heartlessness of this scenario is not unlike the heartlessness that pro-choicers see when presented with the opposite scenario. i don’t expect you to hear/understand/empathize with that, since you’ve expressed a disinclination to try.

but here’s the crux (as it were): if the difference between one position and the other is spiritually based, and if there’s nothing approaching consensus on the matter, a free society has to err on the side of liberty.

please. the ACLU doesn’t threaten excommunication.

Your Mileage May Vary.

blessings,
emily

The “harm done” tenet is where the slippery slope begins (and I notice it has already slid from “life of the mother” to “health of the mother”). This can be twisted and contorted so badly that it eventually strangely begins to resemble “inconvenience;” as stats show, 93% of all abortions are done out of convenience.

Question: Why do you think the Church should allow politicians to still take Communion even though they enable and in some cases facilitate something which the Church considers evil? I find it hard to separate the politician from the abortionist in these circumstances. Your job or career choice does not excuse you from following the morals of the Catholic Church if you wish to consider yourself Catholic.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

hard to understand a position without hearing it out, no?

Not when the position is diametrically opposed to objective truth.

For what it’s worth, however, I have heard out the other side; in fact, I once was pro-choice (though only in the cases of rape/incest/danger to the mother). Thank God I was shown the truth!

And that, for me, is the real crux of the matter – objective truth. Catholics are not permitted to take relativistic stances on any moral issue, because the Church teaches infallibly how we should behave in each of them.

You point out (derisively, I might add) my “disinclination to try” to understand your side; I feel compelled to point out your own disinclination to try to see my side of it. Merely saying it’s “perfectly ok” to feel that abortion is always wrong is NOT the same thing as understanding why the Church teaches such.

If something is absolutely wrong, it never ceases to be absolutely wrong. With respect, I must say you will not persuade me with relativism, no matter how heartrending your examples – nor should any Catholic be so persuaded.

If you are willing to discuss this in terms of absolute truths, I’m perfectly willing to hear what you have to say.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Question: Why do you think the Church should allow politicians to still take Communion even though they enable and in some cases facilitate something which the Church considers evil? I find it hard to separate the politician from the abortionist in these circumstances. **Your job or career choice does not excuse you **from following the morals of the Catholic Church if you wish to consider yourself Catholic.

Hear, hear!

Being a Catholic is more than just belonging to a club – it’s adhering to the Church’s teachings, regardless of the personal stress or inconvenience that it may cause, because of a personal belief that the Church is RIGHT.

Peace,
Dante

 

[fix]

I just received a link to a wonderful response to the letter by the 18 Democrats…Not just the official one by the USCCB which was effective, but also one that suggests that this diatribe borders on something that happened in France by the National Assembly in 1790. It explains something of the errors of Gallicanism and Jansenism which centuries ago took France under Philip the Fair and Austria under Joseph II, to the brink of schism.
tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/us_representatives_challenge_papacy_and_hint_at_old_heresies.htm

I like what is in your link:

It would be interesting to ask the 18 signing Congressmen to clarify their position and answer the following questionnaire:

Do you believe that the political order is above the moral order and that, therefore, a congressman does not need to observe the precepts of natural and revealed morals in his public life?

Do you believe that the Vicar of Christ does not have the right to make a statement on matters of faith or morals or to take disciplinary measures toward Catholics anywhere in the world?

Those are interesting questions.

 

[fix]

Not when the position is diametrically opposed to objective truth.

For what it’s worth, however, I have heard out the other side; in fact, I once was pro-choice (though only in the cases of rape/incest/danger to the mother). Thank God I was shown the truth!

And that, for me, is the real crux of the matter – objective truth. Catholics are not permitted to take relativistic stances on any moral issue, because the Church teaches infallibly how we should behave in each of them.

You point out (derisively, I might add) my “disinclination to try” to understand your side; I feel compelled to point out your own disinclination to try to see my side of it. Merely saying it’s “perfectly ok” to feel that abortion is always wrong is NOT the same thing as understanding why the Church teaches such.

If something is absolutely wrong, it never ceases to be absolutely wrong. With respect, I must say you will not persuade me with relativism, no matter how heartrending your examples – nor should any Catholic be so persuaded.

If you are willing to discuss this in terms of absolute truths, I’m perfectly willing to hear what you have to say.

Peace,
Dante

Note that many will claim we should all seek the truth, yet when it is found and accepted one is seen as intolerant.