Who says? How is that measured? What proof can we offer someone who does not have faith in the Church? If it was that easy to convince someone of this authority that the Church has, the world would be Catholic – and practicing Catholics in communion with the Church at that.
The answers are the same though: those Catholics who disagree with the Church do so because they don’t have enough faith in the Church to give the Church authority over them. And there are no tangible consequences for not going along with what the Church teaches.
God. He judges each accordingly.
If one doesn’t have faith in the Church, or in the Church’s authority over them, what other Catholics say about it isn’t going to matter to them. This applies to Catholics as well. One can show them the Catechism, and show them apologetics, and show them encyclicals, but if they don’t recognize that authority, for whatever reason, and without tangible consequences, it won’t matter to them. What they think/believe/feel will still drive their actions, not what other Catholics tell them.
THEY do not give the Church Authority – Jesus has already done that.
On a human-civil level.
Perhaps it’s the right of all people to self-determination and independence that makes some Catholics pro-choice? Yes, Catholics choose to be Catholic and follow the rules of the Church. But non-Catholics made a different choice, mostly through no fault of their own, especially if they were born and raised in these other religons. And just as Catholics value their freedom, they extend that freedom to others who don’t agree with them. For example, Jewish and Muslims (though they are against abortion) allow (within the teachings of their faiths) abortion in the case of a woman’s health being in danger. Perhaps a Catholic who supports legal abortion is considering that as they have the right to follow the Catholic faith, muslims and jews have that same right as well. By taking away another person’s choice in religion, and in practicing that religion, consider that one day Catholics may not be able to practice their religion either. If one values being able to choose being Catholic, maybe one thinks to value another person’s choice in their religion as well.Adolphus
**No it’s not a question of value of human life at all. I think even the most ardent “pro-choice” people think that human life has value. They are mostly arguing for the right of determination of a woman’s life, which they see as valuable. **
Which is the higher right?
The right to live?
The right not to be inconvenienced?
I see nothing in the Constitution that gives us the right to kill whoever is inconveniencing us.
Nothing American, or European, or even Universal about such a right!!!
The toleration of this right to kill whoever inconveniences us is what is really un-American.
A person who is a Catholic is to follow Christ! To live as a Christian!
Is that so? Are you aware that your tax dollars are subsidizing abortion? Yes,yes, I know the Hyde amendment theoretically prevents any Medicaid funding from paying for abortions, but in practice this is not what happens. (I would provide a source, but my source is currently confidential information that is sitting on my desk.)
Divorce itself is neutral. Divorce can be immoral (as when a man abandons his family to marry his mistress), or it can be moral (as when a woman divorces her abusive husband to legally safeguard herself and her children). The legal structure allowing for divorce is there; whether individuals use it for moral or immoral purposes is not really something one can control.
Divorce is not neutral. But there can be legit use of the legal structures as you note. The person in such a case knows such is not actually divorce (as if the the union could be dissolved) --for a valid sacramental marriage --has only death as its dissolution.
Well, a few reasons actually. Consider perhaps it’s because many Catholics haven’t freely chosen to be Catholic, so their commitment to Catholicism (or lack thereof) reflects that. Many Catholics were Baptized as infants, without their consent or knowledge, or understanding of what that meant. Now, don’t think I’m against infant Baptism, becuase I’m not. But, looking at the way people live their lives, and knowing the rules of the Church, I don’t think as many people would actually choose to be Catholic on their own. And while the Church teaches that once someone is Baptised Catholic that they are bound to Catholic law and Catholic forever…the commitment isn’t the same when the choice is made for a Catholic, as oppposed to someone who actually agrees and commits to being Catholic. It goes back to having faith in the Church and giving them the authority. If one doesn’t have faith in the Church, and doesn’t give them the authority, then canon law won’t mean much to them. They may think about it a little, but in the end, they will make their choices based on what they believe, value, think and feel.
Hey, I agree with you. But let’s look at your example of marriage. When one gets married, they choose to get married and choose to be committed to that marriage. So we can fault someone who acts against their marriage, especially since they have committed to it on their own. But when someone hasn’t consciously choosen to be Catholic and commit to the Catholic faith (whether they’re Catholic or not) they’re not going to hold themselves accountable to its teachings in the same way a committed Catholic will.
Right, I totally understand what you’re saying and acknowledge the teachings of the Church. But Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Catholic women (and their families) feel they have the right to live too.
I was born into the family I was born into. I have my Father and my Mother and my brothers. I did not choose such.