Why almost half the Catholics not prolife?

[krayzevuze]

this is true, but I mean more in the sense of submission to their authority, which is separate from what we may determine is wise or not. following the ordinary magisterium, which I assume this all is part of, is a sure way to keep oneself from sin and close to the heart of the Church.

 

[Mac]

The bishops said abortion is the top issue, just because it gos on to say we cant ignore other issiues dosent mean that the top issiue (abortion) can take a back seat to the other issues. Because then it wouldnt be the top issiue.

So if you want to be obedient to the bishops , then you cant put abortion second to another issue.

 

[SeekSalvation]

SeekSalvation:

If you can answer the question:

“Why do 2/3 of Catholics not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist”?

…I think you will have your answer.

I don’t think that stat is true, but even it is what is the connection? Plenty of evangelicals are pro-life, and as far as I know none of them believe in the True Presence.

The stat I gave is used by the Church her-self. But I do agree, you don’t need to be a Catholic who believes in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be pro-life.

 

[Ender]

Why can’t you simply take the statements of our religious superiors at face value?

That approach didn’t work out so well with regard to sexual predators in the clergy; have we learned nothing from that experience?

this is true, but I mean more in the sense of submission to their authority, which is separate from what we may determine is wise or not. following the ordinary magisterium, which I assume this all is part of, is a sure way to keep oneself from sin and close to the heart of the Church.

Our obligation is to submit to their authority on matters of faith and morals; this is about politics. Besides, what kind of guidance is it that provides me with justification for doing whatever I want to do and supporting whichever politician I choose? That isn’t guidance; it is license.

So if you want to be obedient to the bishops , then you cant put abortion second to another issue.

They may have declared it to be the most important single issue, but if it was the only consideration they wouldn’t have added the caveat “at the same time….” This says there are other considerations involved, and it allows those manifold concerns to outweigh abortion, at least in the minds of those inclined to find that justification.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

Well, there are all kinds of atheists and agnostics. There are homophobic, racist, ethnocentric atheist and agnostics. I never look to any position an atheist takes and hold credence to it. Again, I write that because people when they thing of Atheist automatically assume liberal. Not the case, there are many Conservative Atheist or Libertarian Atheist, especially here in California where the political position doesn’t reflect religious position.

Again, a big show on here is the John and Ken Show. They are far-right shock jokes. Both are atheists, Ken is gay. So, it’s not so simple as Atheist hold any one view.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

True, we are both Californians. I know those regions that are very Conservative, still I replied to someone else much of our political dynamic isn’t based on our religion. That is certainly not reflected in a radio formats like KFI which you may familiar with, where it’s conservative talk but they commonly demean religion.

It’s not that I don’t lack moral courage, I’m exhibiting Moral Courage right now by saying 1) it’s OK to be Democrat and Catholic 2) Other countries have Catholics that would be considered on the Liberal side although the politics doesn’t easily transfer.

No, I don’t condone rape nor do I find the two morally equivalent. Again, I live a celibate life will not have sex before marriage and marriage is for procreation. I agree with all that. What I don’t agree with is that I, who am one person, cannot impose that view on others. I would like them to live that way. I would like a lot of things. But once again, I wouldn’t support a government who imposes that sort of theocracy on me. OK, so they ban abortions. Then, like some states, you can’t buy alcohol on Sunday. Then you have to be of a particular denomination, or you have to be Christian…etc…the list goes on of where once you infringe upon Separation of Church and State at the Federal Level there are more infringements to come.

Again, if you are from California you may be Conservative because you don’t like the taxes or the immigration policies. That’s fine, those are political issues. When it comes to abortion, once again, I am not a hypocrite I live authentically to the word of God, but America is a diverse country with separation of Church and State. I wasn’t raised to impose my beliefs on anyone.

So, once again, I’m not a one issue voter. I look to government for Economic and Political Stability and to do a reasonable job of balancing between Law and Order and Individual Rights. Once again, I live celibate and don’t engage in hedonistic behavior. The issue of abortion won’t impact me personally because of my lifestyle and observance of God as say trade policies, economic policies, human rights policies…etc…

 

[RepetantCatholic]

No, I’m not saying it is fine to have an abortion. What I am saying, is that I live according to the tenets of God and live celibate life and don’t engage in hedonistic behavior. So, abortion policy is not one that I will look at; it does not effect me or the nation the same way Economic or Political Policy effect the nation. Again, I’m not going to impose my belief on others. Instead, I choose to live authentically to the teachings.

What will ultimately effect me are not matters of religion, as I see that between me and my priest, but rather Economic and Political Policies.

As for this being morally equivalent to slavery. Nope, don’t see it. Even a racist and atheist can argue against slavery, but not support basic fundamental rights. I do believe the fact that I am saying it’s OK to be Democrat and Catholic, as many Blue States have Democrat Catholics, is the moral courage to vote strictly based off of the needs of human rights like Black and Brown Folk over making excuses for voting for a candidate who may have noxious views towards both simply because they are pro-life.

 

[billsherman]

Why can’t you simply take the statements of our religious superiors at face value?

Because it is much, much easier to be pro-life when you pretend that you can be in line with Church teaching while still supporting a culture of death. The Bishops are, of course, correct when they say that to be truly pro-life you must defend life from conception to natural death.

You can’t be pro-life AND pro-death penalty.
You can’t be pro-life AND support trading lives for dollars.

Those positions may make sense practically, or in realpolitik, but the Church rejects such partisan thinking out of hand, precisely because it makes a mockery of God’s commands.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

I’m going to challenge you as you left a very compassionate and compelling argument of how you and many see it. This opposed to others who liken us Catholics who are Democrats to supporting rape, slavery and even Sociopaths.

Because of Covid, the world may take on a religious revival. That may be an outgrowth of this mass pandemic where people stop consuming, stop the hedonism and start thinking what matters most in life. Again, while I do think there will be a religious revival they may not necessarily choose the Catholic Church.

But the point being, there are moments in human history of religiosity and there are moments in human history of secularism. I can think of three secular eras, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Victorian Era. With the Victorian era being most recent and most impacting.

Here is where I’m going to challenge you, you see election as a decision on God and Faith and the place of God and Faith in our society. OK. But you, yourself note that it is being lead by a man who has not lived the religious life in the remotest. Again, I remember when Trump would make frequent appearances on Howard Stern (a show I deplore and don’t listen to). I can’t really look to Trump and see any religious conviction or sentiment or any religious guidance.

I’m not against Trump Supporters who vote for Trump because they want to limit immigration and they want a revitalization of manufacturing and energy industries. I understand their plight and I see it as an outgrowth of the rapid change that happened with the internet, computer, and the resulting globalization. But I don’t see the Trump movement as God centered movement. Again, I understand the Trump Supporter, it’s not uncommon for them to be atheist although there are many religious folk among them. I hope with the election of Trump those who voted for him are better off now than four years ago. And if he is re-elected I hope their plight is relieved and better still. But I wouldn’t call his movement a God centered one.

I’m just calling a spade a spade. I’m a swing voter, I could vote for a Republican again. But it would only be if they had feasible Economic Policies both Domestic and Foreign, exhibited an inclusive family value response with a life that is commendable, and had background that vied for the balancing act between Civil Rights, Human Rights and Law Enforcement, which I support.

Ultimately, I’m not a stakeholder. I vote State and Local. I don’t need either Democrat or Republican in the office of the Presidency. With Trump’s re-election, again I hope his stakeholders get reprieve. But I will not vote for him even though he is Pro-life, supposedly, gosh knows how this guy lived his life.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

But again, I want to reassure you that after Covid or this mass Pandemic there might be a period of religious revival. People having their lives interrupted and not consuming, or living for the material, or living hedonisticaly for a period of time really taking a time out and discovering what matters. That’s the part I want to leave you with, because I too want people to choose God and I too do not want the world to be any more secular than it is.

But, but, but if that does happen, and I hope it does, then it would have been God’s plan not man’s plan. It would be the miracle of God guiding the world in the right direction towards salvation and further proof of his love. It would not be man imposing upon man their own views and beliefs at the expense of their welfare, well-being, freedom, integrity, security in all forms including Economic or Political. Again, it wouldn’t be man doing only what God his entitled to do.

 

[Servant31]

I can only guess at the motives of people.

My thoughts though is that many people don’t want to face social backlash for saying “abortion is evil”. People often don’t like hearing they are wrong, no matter what the issue. The discomfort of cognitive dissonance supersedes their moral framework. It’s considered “insensitive. “

Further many don’t want to “offend women”. Our culture is so afraid of accusations, often because there isn’t a way to exonerate yourself. An accusation is the same as a conviction, only faster and more brutal.

Finally anything that even possibly restricts sex through consequences is a major problem for many.

 

[upant]

Donald Trump never talked anyone out of an abortion, and Obama never talked one into one.
We make way too much of this pro-life thing. Most Democrats never had an abortion or never wanted one.

making too much of it?

60 million babies have been killed by abortion,

the Dems want to expand access to abortion here and abroad,

what is the number of kids that have to lose their life before we should do something about it?

 

[upant]

It would be the miracle of God guiding the world in the right direction towards salvation and further proof of his love. It would not be man imposing upon man their own views and beliefs at the expense of their welfare, well-being, freedom, integrity, security in all forms including Economic or Political. Again, it wouldn’t be man doing only what God his entitled to do.

why can’t God use this man? God has a history of using sinners to get his work done.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How do you define “pro life”?

^^This.
Many Catholics in the West do not agree with abortion themselves, but don’t feel that they can “force their own belief on others”.

Many Catholics also don’t see pro-life as the single most important voting issue, so they will vote for a candidate who they think is offering the best leadership and human rights overall even if he isn’t “pro-life” in his voting habits or platform.

However, many of the above categories of Catholics would not want to have an abortion themselves or want someone close to them to have one. So it’s a little tricky to say they’re “not pro-life”.

 

[redbetta]

Do you honestly believe that the act of abortion is the deliberate taking of another human life? If you do, why does it matter whether or not to you whether others disagree that it is the taking of another human life? How can you have a live and let live attitude towards homicide?

If a good chunk of the country believed folks from a certain race or ethnicity were subhuman and it was not murder to kill them, would you not oppose it because that would be imposing your beliefs on them?

 

[redbetta]

My bare minimum definition of what it means to be pro-life is someone who opposes:

Abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

I’m not sure about capital punishment, although, I am opposed to it and would support banning it nationally.

Anyway, this definition leaves plenty of room for people folks of a variety of ideological persuasions to call themselves pro-life. Adding more to it just makes the movement increasingly exclusive and, as a consequence, gives it less power to oppose these crimes against the right to life.

 

[ralfyman]

I found one poll here, and it refers to opinions concerning abortion, but by religious affiliation. I think there are problems quantifying devotion. One can probably refer to, say, Church attendance, but it’s possible even some Catholics who see themselves as devoted (given different standards?) might not agree with that.

Public Opinion on Abortion | Pew Research Center

 

[Elf01]

No, I don’t condone rape nor do I find the two morally equivalent. Again, I live a celibate life will not have sex before marriage and marriage is for procreation. I agree with all that. What I don’t agree with is that I, who am one person, cannot impose that view on others.

In other words I know abortion is wrong but support it anyway.

 

[goout]

goout:

Why can’t you simply take the statements of our religious superiors at face value?

That approach didn’t work out so well with regard to sexual predators in the clergy; have we learned nothing from that experience?

I’m talking about the statement from our religious superiors on the primacy of abortion, and the related sanctity of life issues which include the death penalty.

Let me ask the question again:
Why can’t you take the bishops’ statement at face value?

 

[Ender]

I’m talking about the statement from our religious superiors on the primacy of abortion, and the related sanctity of life issues which include the death penalty .

Let me ask the question again:
Why can’t you take the bishops’ statement at face value?

I can’t accept it because it makes no sense. You cannot have multiple primary issues; there can be only one. Nor do I accept the idea that simply because an issue is important, and has a significant effect on individuals and their lives, that this makes it a “life” issue. The “environmental crisis” (whatever that is) and poverty are not life issues, and even if they were there is no one position that is more moral than another. There will surely be one position that is more effective than another, but that doesn’t make it more moral.

How much sense does it make to say that abortion is primary, but that “at the same time” we cannot dismiss other issues? What does that even mean? What is a Democrat to do? Vote Republican because abortion is primary, or stay with the Democrats because he prefers their position on the environment? Given these “instructions” one could do either and quite correctly consider them complied with. That doesn’t really make abortion seem all that primary, does it?