Why are so many priests/parishes afraid to be pro-life?

[turtle18]

I go to alot of different parishes in our diocese (Louisville) and none of them pray for this, not even our “conservative” parishes. Occasionally, one pastor will throw in a petition on Sunday Mass. It is so sad.

As for being 'anti-abortion" instead of pro-life you are just using semantics to deflect the real issue and real question. What are you–some Democrat who’s trying to justify your pro-choice votings?

Does it not bother you that our church won’t stand up for what is right? 50 million babies in America have been killed since abortion was legalized. It is a travesty and now our churches won’t even pray to stop it anymore. All in the name of “harmony” and “good will” towards women. It is such cowardice.

 

[marci]

Being ‘anti-abortion’ is not necessarily the same thing as being ‘pro-life’ in the Catholic sense. Look at how we, the laity, are told to view “the right to life”…
…I hear the first two paragraphs quoted a lot, with the assumption that “right to life” is a synomym for anti-abortion. But the third paragraph tells us what the phrase means to the Church. “Right to life” includes abortion and euthanasia, but also slavery, torture, and even deportation.

 

[turtle18]

Really, I don’t know why people log on here and try to protest. I’m just wondering why we can’t pray more to stop abortion, starting with daily petitions at the Masses. Can someone give me a good reason why we shouldn’t, other than “there are other issues that need to be prayed for, too?”

 

[SoCalRC]

Your not suggesting that abortion is to be viewed on the same level as deportation are you?

I think you answered your own question. Sexual trafficing and slavery are certainly illegal, but the State Department tells us that 50,000 woman and children are brought into the US for this purpose each year:

state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2002/

It is illegal to hire and exploit illegal aliens, but it is estimated that 12,000,000 of them are here, and, being exploited.

The Church is concerned with Salvation. It strives to be a force for good, but it can’t abandon God’s law for expediency. From a Catholic perspective, it is important not just that you oppose abortion, but understand why the Church connects the teaching to so many other things.

Again, from the Church’s point of view, it is incoherent to say that 50,000 sex slaves each year, or millions of exploited people are not worthy of our Christian obligation because we have more important things to focus on.

 

[SoCalRC]

Really, I don’t know why people log on here and try to protest. I’m just wondering why we can’t pray more to stop abortion, starting with daily petitions at the Masses. Can someone give me a good reason why we shouldn’t, other than “there are other issues that need to be prayed for, too?”

But why is that a bad reason? The whole foundation of our teaching on abortion is that we treasure human life, in all forms, as having infinite value. We are each a unique creation, loved infinitately by our Creator.

If you focus intently on a single manifistation of this teaching, then it starts to take on special status, but is a fertized zygote, which has only a 50-50 chance of reaching live birth even without abortion, really more important than a newborn child, an elderly woman, me, you?

Consider what Pope Stephen V wrote in the 9th century:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.” - Epistle to the Archbishop of Mainz

The subject appears to have been the morality of infanticide. Burying deformed or disabled newborns alive (a custom is still alive in small pockets of the globe today). If you elevate one form of life above all others, then the others are diminished. If you diminish any form of life, the whole of our doctrine is undermined:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note, The Participation of Catholics in Public Life

 

[marci]

Why do you ask? I merely noted how the Church defines “right to life” (in its own words).

The Pope suggested in Evangelium Vitae that the Death Penalty should be seen very nearly the same as abortion.

And, in the Vatican’s doctrinal note regarding voting from 2002, it expressly put modern forms of slavery, a responsibility for a socially just economy, and peace on the same level as abortion

From a Catholic theological perspective, this seems wholly consistant to me.

I think you answered your own question. Sexual trafficing and slavery are certainly illegal, but the State Department tells us that 50,000 woman and children are brought into the US for this purpose each year:

state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2002/

It is illegal to hire and exploit illegal aliens, but it is estimated that 12,000,000 of them are here, and, being exploited.

The Church is concerned with Salvation. It strives to be a force for good, but it can’t abandon God’s law for expediency. From a Catholic perspective, it is important not just that you oppose abortion, but understand why the Church connects the teaching to so many other things.

Again, from the Church’s point of view, it is incoherent to say that 50,000 sex slaves each year, or millions of exploited people are not worthy of our Christian obligation because we have more important things to focus on.

SoCal, all I can say is sometimes I wonder if we speak the same language.

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCal, all I can say is sometimes I wonder if we speak the same language.

Again, why?

I’ve quoted CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, directions to the lay members of the Church on how to apply our faith. And, from a Doctrinal Note, which gives guidance on how to apply Church Doctrine to Public Life.

We can go through them a line at a time if you wish to see what parts you object to.

Frankly, I am baffled why my position, which is simply that the Church’s job is to help us grow closer to Christ, a task we can never complete, but which we are obliged to strive for, is so objectionable.

Perhaps the reason we speak different languages is that we have different expectations. The question first asked seems to be saying, ‘why can’t my priest be as moral as me, and focus on what I know is most important?’

But the structure of Mass is different, it starts with us calling to mind how unworthy we are. How much we need to grow and improve. How we keep need to keep striving to follow Christ. Look at the symbols around most Catholic Church’s, the crossed keys reminding us of the Pope’s authority, the Chi-Rho on vestements marking warriors against evil (dating back to Constantine), or the Sacred Heart, signifying Jesus love for all of humanity and the sacrifice he willingly made for us all.

Christ, the Lord, knew his fate, but He never discussed abortion (at least recorded in the Gospels). But, seemingly neither did Moses before him, or St. Paul after him.

The Pope, St. Peter’s successor, speaks about a great many issues. As the Vicar of Christ, he sees fit to resist evil in many forms.

But somehow, it is a failing of the heirarchy not to share some people’s exact priorities and limited view of what is, and is not, important? Catholicism without the heirarchy, I understand (disagree, but understand) - it’s called Protestant. But Catholicism where it is annoying to spend too much time on what Christ said was important?

I trust that you are striving to follow Christ in your own way, and pray you’ll have nothing but success. But you are right, I don’t understand.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t disagree with you except that at this time in our history, in the United States, there is no issue KILLING more innocents than abortion. Abortion causes the deaths of more than one million people every year in this country alone. Until we as individuals and as a nation wake up to this fact, we’ll never be able to take care of the others. How can you fight for euthanasia, death penalty, etc. yet allow the senseless slaughter of babies in the womb, in some cases inches from birth? So many are quite passionate as they oppose these other issues but sadly consider abortion to be the woman’s choice, or a choice to made only between a woman and her abortionist. The babies need us to speak up for them. They can’t speak for themselves.

I am not immune to the emotions you feel, and most assuredly object to abortion whole heartedly. In my voting, and even in my life (my son was an extremely difficult pregnancy, there was no question for my wife and I (actually, she was a rock, I had doubts as her health deteriorated). Our son is severely disabled, but one of the lights of my life.

Where we disagree is seemingly in perspective. Is abortion horrific? Yes. Is the scale beyond human comprehension, yes. But so are many other horrific things. We know that there was abortion before Christ. And we know that there has been abortion, even among the faithful, every century since Christ (for one short period of about three years the Pope tried to fight rampant prostitution in Rome by assigning not just a sentence of excommunication for abortion, but a possible sentence of death - by what accounts we have, it did not stop abortion, it just stopped people from coming to confession). Abortion was illegal in the US for about a century - made illegal because it was incredibly wide spread by the 1850’s, and we have every reason to believe that the practice continued.

Now it is legal, and has shrunk significantly since 1990. It would be great to point to secular law, but the success stories are places like California, and Oregon - just dubbed “the least pro-life state in the union” by Americans United for Life. What this says to me is, all good comes from God. All my earthly dreams about power and control are just that, dreams. There is only one true power.

Suspending part of my concience for expediency, to try to make progress on something ‘more important’, is just, to me, a step away from God. Trusting in myself, as it were, instead of trusting in God.

I most assuredly could be wrong - I demonstrably sin and fail, but that is how I feel. But, again, I have great empathy for your emotions and respect your pursuit of what you believe is right.

 

[marci]

Again, why?

I’ve quoted CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, directions to the lay members of the Church on how to apply our faith. And, from a Doctrinal Note, which gives guidance on how to apply Church Doctrine to Public Life.

 

[marci]

Where we disagree is seemingly in perspective. Is abortion horrific? Yes. Is the scale beyond human comprehension, yes. But so are many other horrific things. We know that there was abortion before Christ. And we know that there has been abortion, even among the faithful, every century since Christ (for one short period of about three years the Pope tried to fight rampant prostitution in Rome by assigning not just a sentence of excommunication for abortion, but a possible sentence of death - by what accounts we have, it did not stop abortion, it just stopped people from coming to confession). Abortion was illegal in the US for about a century - made illegal because it was incredibly wide spread by the 1850’s, and we have every reason to believe that the practice continued.

Well prostitution has always been with us, so I guess we should just accept it? The poor, according to Christ, will always be with us so I guess we should just forget about trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable? People use drugs eventhough we spend millions a year trying to keep kids minds from turning to mush, so I guess we should just go ahead and legalize it? Catholics use ABC everyday, so I guess the Pope should allow it?

Isn’t this the “if everyone jumped off a cliff, would it be ok for you to do it” rationalization?

Now it is legal, and has shrunk significantly since 1990. It would be great to point to secular law, but the success stories are places like California, and Oregon - just dubbed “the least pro-life state in the union” by Americans United for Life. What this says to me is, all good comes from God. All my earthly dreams about power and control are just that, dreams. There is only one true power.

How is california a success story? So pro-life advocates are just power hungry meglamaniacs who want to control us and gain power? Did you ever stop to think that maybe God works through people to effect change in society?

Suspending part of my concience for expediency, to try to make progress on something ‘more important’, is just, to me, a step away from God. Trusting in myself, as it were, instead of trusting in God.

I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. According to you my working toward ending abortion in this country, is steping away from God, because I erroneously–according to you–give abortion the status of ‘most important’ life issue. The fact that I and millions of others like me can even carry on in the face of all of this apathy is the fact that we TRUST in God. That He will not forsake us in our battle against Satan who steals so many souls through this horrid scurge against children in our modern society.

I

 

[SoCalRC]

Well prostitution has always been with us, so I guess we should just accept it?

No, my position is that we are called to reject evil in all forms. You are the one who is angry about non prioritization.

Twice you accused me of equating abortion to deportation. But that accusation is false. I have merely quoted a Pope, who in turn quoted an ecumenical council. If you “object”, it is between you and Rome, not me.

I notice that you have ventured into voting and politics, seemingly equating my views to voting pro-choice. Again, this is a false accusation. My view is to follow the Church’s advice and vote my faith as comprehensively as one can. From the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”

If you focus on any one thing at the expense of other important teachings, you potentially hurt the faith. What are the sorts of things we should not compromise on? The Church gives us an idea:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…”

Abortion and euthanasia are on the list, but there are seven other examples provided. You seem angry that I do not share your enthusiasm for a more seemless merge of Faith and politics, but the Church warns about putting to much emphasis on voting as well:

“A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

So again, your disagreement is not really with me. Part of the reason you do not understand my perspective is probably differing experiences. I am actually am old enough to remember when we were clearly a minority. A fellow Marine felt he owed my father his life in WWII and tried to use his family connections to get him a good job after the war. The catch, lie about being Catholic. We lived in a house without running water instead.

My first day of public school, the teacher explained to the class what WASP meant, pointed out that I wasn’t one, and then instructed everyone to be nice to show a good Christain attitude towards me anyway.

So, when you vote GOP (as you seem to believe all Catholics of good concience should do), you are thinking about certain issues. I also consider things like, a GOP president bringing in a huge influx of people into the administration, particularly the justice department, who all graduated from a school where it is still taught (and widely believed) that Catholicism is a non-Christian cult and that the Pope is quite likely an agent of Satan.

The Church seemingly gives this some thought as well. “Religious Freedom” is among the list of 9 things we specifically should not compromise in on voting.

Regarding right to life in particular, we also having differing experiences. I spent almost two years in close quarters (medic) with some of the bloodiest conflict in Vietnam (highest casualty (kia) rates for a battalion in USMC history, well over 90%). So I have different views not just on war, but first hand knowledge on how easy it is to close one’s heart to human suffering.

And, having actually lived through a diffcult “right to life” issues at both ends of the spectrum (my son and my father), I have a great deal of compassion for people who make different moral compromises than myself.

Last, but not least, raising a disabled son during an era when it was widely believed that disabilities like autism were the result of parenting and the expectation was to abandon one’s offspring to institutional care, I am quite aware that, we have plenty of room for growth, both as individuals and a nation, when it comes to truly respecting human life as the Church instructs, that is, at every stage and in every form.

 

[SoCalRC]

How is california a success story? So pro-life advocates are just power hungry meglamaniacs who want to control us and gain power? Did you ever stop to think that maybe God works through people to effect change in society?

The context was abortion. Abortion rates have fallen steadily since 1990. They have fallen more in California than the national average.

If the goal is fewer abortions, that would be good news. If the goal is a broader political agenda, that is a different story.

According to you my working toward ending abortion in this country…

Not in the least. I simply agree with the Church that focusing on one narrow aspect of a teaching, to the exclussion of other important issues is counter productive.

I vote against abortion, I also fight poverty and work to provide pregnant women other viable options. You seem to be furious that, for example, I won’t vote for a war that two Popes, the Catechism, and my own concience tell me is unjust.

No offense, but if you truly trust that God will not let you down, why should Catholics have to compromise in their voting at all?

 

[marci]

No, my position is that we are called to reject evil in all forms. You are the one who is angry about non prioritization.

Twice you accused me of equating abortion to deportation. But that accusation is false. I have merely quoted a Pope, who in turn quoted an ecumenical council. If you “object”, it is between you and Rome, not me.

You have continually referred to the moral compromises you must make in voting “pro-life” My point is there should be no compromise on issues reguarding murder.

I notice that you have ventured into voting and politics, seemingly equating my views to voting pro-choice. Again, this is a false accusation. My view is to follow the Church’s advice and vote my faith as comprehensively as one can. From the Vatican:

So what does voting your faith mean to you with reguards to abortion? We have gone back and forth several times and I still have no idea what you would do. What does that tell you?

If you focus on any one thing at the expense of other important teachings, you potentially hurt the faith. What are the sorts of things we should not compromise on? The Church gives us an idea:

You sound like all of those so called moderate republicans out there that are horrified the christian right will be “one issue voters”

Abortion and euthanasia are on the list, but there are seven other examples provided. You seem angry that I do not share your enthusiasm for a more seemless merge of Faith and politics, but the Church warns about putting to much emphasis on voting as well:

Of those seven other, which ones directly result in the taking of life? Which ones not only result in the taking of life, but are delibrate in that end. Yes war causes death, but indirectly. It is not the intention that people die, it is an indirect consequence of an action. We can argue all day about whether Irac is a just war, but war in and of itself is sometimes necessary, even according to the church. The death penalty, according to the church, can be justified in certain circumstances. However, with abortion, death IS the purpose, the act can NEVER be justified. So, if we can do something to stop it, whether by voting, raising awareness, donating time and money, we as christians should act.

So, when you vote GOP (as you seem to believe all Catholics of good concience should do), you are thinking about certain issues.

I believe all catholics of good conscience should consider life first. If that means the candidate is GOP so be it. I really don’t care what they are, libertarian, democrat, green party, whatever; so long as they work to end abortion.

I also consider things like, a GOP president bringing in a huge influx of people into the administration, particularly the justice department, who all graduated from a school where it is still taught (and widely believed) that Catholicism is a non-Christian cult and that the Pope is quite likely an agent of Satan.

You really should stop accusing public officials of such things unless you provide proof that these individuals are indeed participating in the things you accuse them of.

Regarding right to life in particular, we also having differing experiences. I spent almost two years in close quarters (medic) with some of the bloodiest conflict in Vietnam (highest casualty (kia) rates for a battalion in USMC history, well over 90%). So I have different views not just on war, but first hand knowledge on how easy it is to close one’s heart to human suffering.

You have NO idea what my experiences concerning right to life are. My heart is far from being closed to human suffering. But people such as yourself are extremely misguided when it comes to charity. “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” Just because I am against abortion doesn’t mean that I am for starvation, cruelty, and kicking little old ladies and children out on the street. You act like we have to choose between these things, perhaps sometimes we do, but it is the exception. Aside from what abortion is, what is does to the soul of a people is worse. I am concerned with the soul every bit as much as I am the body.

And, having actually lived through a diffcult “right to life” issues at both ends of the spectrum (my son and my father), I have a great deal of compassion for people who make different moral compromises than myself.

What moral compromises? Deciding whether or not to have an abortion? This is not a moral compromises, engaging in this act is a sin, plain and simple.

 

[marci]

Not in the least. I simply agree with the Church that focusing on one narrow aspect of a teaching, to the exclussion of other important issues is counter productive.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I go to alot of different parishes in our diocese (Louisville) and none of them pray for this, not even our “conservative” parishes. Occasionally, one pastor will throw in a petition on Sunday Mass. It is so sad.

As for being 'anti-abortion" instead of pro-life you are just using semantics to deflect the real issue and real question. What are you–some Democrat who’s trying to justify your pro-choice votings?

Does it not bother you that our church won’t stand up for what is right? 50 million babies in America have been killed since abortion was legalized. It is a travesty and now our churches won’t even pray to stop it anymore. All in the name of “harmony” and “good will” towards women. It is such cowardice.

Why don’t you take it up with those particular priests in those particular parishes? What’s wrong with confronting them about it; and asking them to include it in the petitions or an occasional homily?

 

[SoCalRC]

What does that tell you?

If “I have never voted for a pro-choice candidate” is not clear enough for you, it suggests a lot. But it does not nec. “tell” me anything, I cannot look into the hearts and minds of others.

You sound like all of those…

You seem to have some trouble distinguishing between what I say and what I quote the Roman Catholic Church as saying. The CHURCH warns about the moral peril of one issue voting. I happen to agree, but the origin of the statement remains the same.

Of those seven other, which ones directly result in the taking of life?

I left the quote unfinished in the hopes that you would consider reading the document for yourself. Again, I say, ‘listen to the Church’, not to me.

However, with abortion, death IS the purpose, the act can NEVER be justified.

I would agree, as does my faith. But it is a harder teaching than you seem to think. When the Church decreed that abortion was always illicit, even to save the life of a mother (1884, 1889), there were some lingering doubts from theologians. Look at how the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the questions/resolution:

In answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires. (Catholic Encyclopedia, ABORTION, 1913 edition)

Now look at what the Church still tells caregivers today:

#45 Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.
…
#48 In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion. (Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services)

But, although the maternal prognosis for ectopic pregnancy is dramatically better today than in 1902 (early detection, plasma, antibiotics, etc.), a fair number of the loudest, self professed, “true pro-life Catholics” on this board will howl that there is no question that ectopic pregnancies can be terminated under an application of “double effect”.

Theologians are actually strongly divided on that question, and the Church has declined to take sides. But some of the same people who are screaming “NEVER!” in one breath, are just as certain that 100,000+ fetal terminations that are counted as abortions by secular society are acceptable.

My point is not who is right and who is wrong. My point is that when we start becoming certain about the superiority of our own moral compass, we can lose sight of our own proper moral context in the eyes of God (Luke 18:9-14 comes to mind).

You have NO idea what my experiences concerning right to life are…

That was my point. We are each shaped by our own experiences, so we should be careful about passing moral judgement.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is where you and I differ. I see no compromise in voting to save innocent little babies.

And you continue in falsely implying that I vote otherwise.

Not to mention the fact that there are candidates out there that are also against gay marriage, stem cell research, and euthanasia. I guess I’m lucky, I don’t feel I have to compromise.

I’m glad the candidates are plentiful where you are. I’m hard pressed to find a presidential candidate in ANY party that matches Church teaching on just the issues you mention, let alone the larger list that I feel obliged to apply.

But I’m also a stickler. If, say, a president provides Federal funding for stem cell research (as our current president does), it is, as he describes it, a “compromise”, but it is a non-negotiable for me (no compromise).

Likewise, if the Vice President’s daughter is openly gay, lives in a self-described “committed relationship”, and uses seemingly illicit (in Catholic teaching) means to extend that relationship to a child - then having her head up a re-election effort is, for me, an indication that maybe, just maybe, “marriage”, in the Catholic sense, might just be getting lip service…

 

[Delphinus85]

What is wrong with our priests when they are afraid of “offending” women instead of taking a stand for life? I think it is a sad, disgusting commentary on our Church. They don’t even include prayers against abortion in the petitions anymore.

Actually, many petitions mention those being treated with injustice, or those killed by violence, or prayers for leaders who allow injustice/cruelty, or for these leaders to end violence, especially on the innocent. The poor children brutally butchered in the name of “choice” are included in this.

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually, many petitions mention those being treated with injustice, or those killed by violence, or prayers for leaders who allow injustice/cruelty, or for these leaders to end violence, especially on the innocent. The poor children brutally butchered in the name of “choice” are included in this.

Well said. I’ve been trying to make the point that abortion is just one example of a broad teaching we often address, but without much success.

 

[Archerette74]

I think many priests are afraid to preach on a lot of the “tougher” topics… in part because they hear a lot of complaints about everytime they offend or make a decision somebody is upset over… but how often do they hear from us that we appreciate them challenging us to be better Catholics? How many of us say to our priests supporting words when they say something that helps us grow? I’m guessing not enough of us.

If we told our priests that we like when they give homilies on these topics, then they might do it more often. And I think that you would need to tell them in a way that they could really have time to think about what you are telling them. For example, don’t tell them as you shake their hand as you walk out the door after mass. Set a short meeting and tell them in person when there are no distractions. Write them a letter of appreciation of a time where they touched you during a homily on an issue such as pro-life. They need positive feedback over these things instead of just negative feedback.