Why almost half the Catholics not prolife?

[nicholasG]

Interesting article I found.

Bible times

The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.

The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.

The New Testament doesn’t explicitly deal with abortion.

Western history

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before ‘quickening’; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the fetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

If abortion is an abominable sin, why wasn’t is explicitly mentioned in the bible?

 

[krayzevuze]

same reason masturbating, viewing of animated porn, and other such moral evils weren’t. in addition, the Bible is not the end-all-and-be-all of morality, but it does contain all the principles by which one can derive these things to be mortal sins

 

[nicholasG]

same reason masturbating, viewing of animated porn, and other such moral evils weren’t

Maybe they weren’t included because they are not moral evils.

 

[signit]

Executing a dangerous criminal who has murdered or worse vs. executing a human being who has done nothing wrong. There is no comparison.

Now, I am against the death penalty as well, but, it boggles my mind how people are care more about treating evil individuals humanely than the most innocent among us.

I have heard that argument, from “pro-choice” supporters, saying that if I oppose abortion I should also oppose the death penalty, because it’s more important to preserve the life of someone who’s “already here.”

Obviously I don’t agree with it.

And on the death penalty, there’s this story that just came down:

Two inmates escape Columbia Correctional Institution, could be headed to Madison

COLUMBIA COUNTY, Wis. (WMTV) - The Portage Police Department says two inmates escaped from the Columbia Correctional Institution Thursday morning, and are still on the run.

Both men have previously escaped from other institutions, before being transferred to Columbia Correctional, which is a maximum security prison.

Now look, I’m a Catholic; I support the sanctity of life; I don’t relish somebody being executed.

But I could go along with the death penalty where (1) there is practically no doubt of guilt and (2) the crime was extreme.

As my cousin used to say, yes, there’s a one-in-a-million chance they could make a mistake and execute the wrong person. But if the guilty person is not executed there’s always a chance they could be set free to kill again.

If that makes me not pro-life, under some standard, so be it.

 

[nicholasG]

the Bible is not the end-all-and-be-all of morality,

I guess it’s not when it’s convenient.

 

[Ender]

If abortion is an abominable sin, why wasn’t is explicitly mentioned in the bible?

That’s a reasonable question. That said, it is not reasonable to assume that its absence means that it was not severely condemned. As krayzevuze said, the bible does not contain everything the church teaches. Of similar importance are her sacred traditions, and, although the bible did not address the issue, the Early Fathers certainly did.

What sense does it make to think of us as murderers when we say that women who practice abortion are murderers and will render account to God for abortion? (Athenagoras, c175)

The woman who has deliberately destroyed [her fetus] is subject to the penalty for murder. And among us there is no fine distinction between a completely formed and unformed [embryo]. (St Basil, c375)

 

[krayzevuze]

Maybe they weren’t included because they are not moral evils.

I guess it’s not when it’s convenient.

to me, all of these things are clearly included anyway, by the type of action or an implicit condemnation (St. Thomas reads St. Paul as condemning it for instance, and Jesus condemns it), but it has nothing to do with convenience, because pirating software isnt included, but stealing and not disobeying an unrighteous law is, price gouging isn’t included “explicitly” but not abusing the poor and greed is, and so on. Unless Im not remembering laws. and why do you think that is? Why do you think a document finished in the first century and started 4k or more years ago including oral tradition wouldnt include every possible sin explicitly? the reason is obvious. maybe that’s why… a living tradition who has the authority from the author of the text exists to solve these problems? @Ender just responded as I was typing this, but here is another one:

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 you shall not forswear yourself, Matthew 5:34 you shall not bear false witness, Exodus 20:16 you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life. (Didache, 70ad)

 

[tuffsmurf]

This is not how elective adoption in developed countries work! When a birth mother opts for adoption during the pregnancy, she will find a suitable adoptive family with the help of an adoption agency during the pregnancy. They will decide about an open or a closed adoption and the baby will go into the care of the adoptive parents almost directly after birth and the adoption will be finalized in court shortly afterwards.

 

[billsherman]

I can’t accept it because it makes no sense.

The Bishops are wrong because their moral teaching does not align with your political stance.

They are saying that pro-life means defending the dignity of life from conception to natural death.

You don’t like that for some reason, and say that pro-life means opposing abortion.

This stance - as has been pointed out many, many times - rejects the authority of the bishops and the Church. It is a Republican stance, not a Catholic stance. It is a political stance, not a moral stance.

 

[Ender]

The Bishops are wrong because their moral teaching does not align with your political stance.

This is an insult, not an argument, and certainly not a response to my comments. Deal with the substance of what I said, and skip the uncharitable assertions about why I said it.

They are saying that pro-life means defending the dignity of life from conception to natural death.

That’s a nice slogan, but in practice is not all that meaningful, especially if one lards up the definition with irrelevant political issues.

This stance - as has been pointed out many, many times - rejects the authority of the bishops and the Church. It is a Republican stance, not a Catholic stance. It is a political stance, not a moral stance.

Repeating an error does not transform it into truth, and as for “the authority of the bishops”, that does not exclude them from reasonable criticism. That you cannot defend their comments with anything more substantial than condemnations of me suggests that my observations are reasonable.

I do not say that inferiors are to make themselves judges of the orders of those set over them; in which it may be taken for granted that nothing is ordered contrary to the Divine laws, but I assert that prudence also is necessary to notice if anything does so contradict,and freedom firmly to pronounce against these. (St Bernard of Clairvaux)

 

[billsherman]

This is an insult, not an argument, and certainly not a response to my comments.

I fail to see how I mischaracterized your comments. You think the Bishops are wrong, because they don’t agree with you.

Repeating an error does not transform it into truth, and as for “ the authority of the bishops ”, that does not exclude them from reasonable criticism.

Your criticism of the Bishops is based entirely on the fact that you cannot square their moral declarations with your political beliefs, so you have to claim that they are wrong.

They aren’t wrong. You are just taking a political stance and pretending that it is a moral stance. They are taking a moral stance. You, quite simply, do not believe that all life has dignity from conception to natural death. You are easily the most passionate defender of the death penalty on this site, and have been repeatedly corrected by at least one priest.

They are saying that pro-life means defending the dignity of life from conception to natural death.

In one sentence you undermine the entire foundation of Catholic moral theology.

Your stance is purely a political one, you just want to pretend that it is a moral one. No matter how many times you say that is moral to execute people, it isn’t. The Bishops have the right to make that determination, not you.

Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being a Republican, or holding political stances. You just shouldn’t pretend that those stances are moral. Because they aren’t.

 

[redbetta]

Seriously? It is more important to preserve the life of a monster as opposed to someone who has done nothing wrong and has the potential to do so much good in the world? Those are some pretty messed-up priorities those folks have.

 

[JimG]

Catholic Bishop: Fighting Abortion is the “Most Important Human Rights Issue of Our Time” - CatholicCitizens.org

 

[Ender]

I fail to see how I mischaracterized your comments. You think the Bishops are wrong, because they don’t agree with you.

First, this is not at all what you wrote, which was that I claimed they “are wrong because their moral teaching does not align with your political stance.” In fact I said nothing whatever about my political stance on anything, and obviously if I disagree with someone by definition I think he’s wrong. Second, I deny that their own prudential judgments constitute moral teachings.

Your criticism of the Bishops is based entirely on the fact that you cannot square their moral declarations with your political beliefs…

This is pretty much exactly backwards. As I said, I deny that their political pronouncements constitute moral directions.

They aren’t wrong. You are just taking a political stance and pretending that it is a moral stance.

Again, no. I have not said one word to suggest that I have taken a moral stance on anything, and it is precisely because, as I keep repeating, we are dealing with political concerns, not moral ones.

You, quite simply, do not believe that all life has dignity from conception to natural death.

Once again you confuse insult for argument. Nothing I have ever said justifies this comment.

You are easily the most passionate defender of the death penalty on this site…

I will point out that despite the fact that others have discussed this issue on this thread, I have not, and nothing I have said elsewhere is relevant to my comments here.

…and have been repeatedly corrected by at least one priest.

My comments have been opposed by a priest, but, just as with the bishops, membership in the clergy (clearly) confers no automatic legitimacy to their opinions.

Your stance is purely a political one, you just want to pretend that it is a moral one.

Not once in that entire post did you address anything I said. Your entire response was nothing more than a judgment of me personally. Can you not deal with the substance of my comments?

 

[billsherman]

Can you not deal with the substance of my comments?

Yes. And I have exclusively. Your arguments are purely political. They are not moral arguments.

Catholic moral arguments respect the authority of the Bishops, you don’t.

Catholic moral arguments about life issues are based on the moral absolute that all human life has dignity from conception to natural death, you explicitly reject this.

Catholic moral arguments about life issues recognize that abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and others all represent an attack on the dignity of human life, you explicitly reject this.

You, obviously, don’t agree with the Church on life issues. Your stance is not in accord with the moral teaching of the Bishops. Hence, it is not pro-life in a Catholic sense. It is, however, pro-life in a Republican sense.

Your stance is political, not moral. There really isn’t any room to argue here. You’ve made your choice, at least own it. Don’t act like the Bishops aren’t the moral arbiters of Catholicism. They are, you aren’t.

 

[Ender]

Your arguments are purely political. They are not moral arguments.

All of your assertions are simple characterizations of my comments; you have yet to address their substance. You have yet to indicate anything that suggests you recognize what that is. Let me try again:

1. In prioritizing a list of items, only one thing can be primary. True or false?
2. Can whatever is primary become subordinate to what is secondary?
3. If two people come to opposite conclusions about which political solution is best, can either decision be considered immoral?
4. If one disagrees with a bishop on the best solution to a political issue is that sinful?

There are more, but this should suffice. Perhaps if you try to answer the questions rather than judging why I ask them we can make some progress.

 

[billsherman]

All of your assertions are simple characterizations of my comments; you have yet to address their substance.

I’ve merely restated the Church’s absolutist position on life issues. You are free to reject it.

Let me try again:

I don’t see how this is meaningful, but I’ll give it a try.

In prioritizing a list of items, only one thing can be primary. True or false?

I don’t know. This sounds like a philosophical question.

Can whatever is primary become subordinate to what is secondary?

I also don’t know. This also sounds like a philosophical question.

If two people come to opposite conclusions about which political solution is best, can either decision be considered immoral?

Yes, obviously.

If one disagrees with a bishop on the best solution to a political issue is that sinful?

Maybe. This question proves, though, does it not, that your position is merely political? You are operating purely in the world of politics, pragmatism, and realpolitik. The Church’s positions are moral, and based on theology, not politics.

The political opinions of Bishops can be safely ignored I imagine, but their moral teachings (of which their pro-life position is unambiguous) cannot be ignored or waved away like you want to.

Sorry. Your position is merely political. It is not Catholic.

 

[Ender]

In prioritizing a list of items, only one thing can be primary. True or false?

billsherman:

I don’t know. This sounds like a philosophical question.

This is not a trick question. How are we to understand what the bishops meant if we can’t even understand what “primary” means? One thing can be primary; all others are subordinate to it.

Ender:

Can whatever is primary become subordinate to what is secondary?

I also don’t know. This also sounds like a philosophical question.

Again, this is straightforward. If something is primary it cannot also be secondary; that would render the term meaningless.

Ender:

If two people come to opposite conclusions about which political solution is best, can either decision be considered immoral?

Yes, obviously.

No. Disagreement over practical solutions are legitimate as they do not involve moral choices, but rather prudential judgments, and an error in a considered judgment is not a sin regardless of the outcome. As an example:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war.… (Ratzinger)

You even agree with me later on when you admit that the political views of the bishops do not require our assent. That could hardly be true if political disagreements involved moral choices.

Ender:

If one disagrees with a bishop on the best solution to a political issue is that sinful?

Maybe. This question proves, though, does it not, that your position is merely political?

It is a question. Of itself it proves nothing whatever.

The political opinions of Bishops can be safely ignored I imagine, but their moral teachings (of which their pro-life position is unambiguous) cannot be ignored or waved away like you want to.

You are assuming things that I have not said rather than limiting yourself to my actual comments. Actually, one of my few claims is that the political opinions of bishops do not require our assent; something with which you clearly agree. As for their moral teachings, we disagree about the nature of their comments. Aside from their comment on abortion, the rest of their statements involve judgments, not moral truths.

 

[Walk-worthy]

The more important question is why are more than 50% of Bishops not pro-life? That will elucidate the answer to your question!

WW

 

[Walk-worthy]

I beg to differ! The Bible is the “moral law”. It is central to God’s moral laws.