Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you’re saying courthouse marriages aren’t marriages. :rolleyes:

Tell me exactly how two men sharing a bed in the house across the street ruins your life.
This is why my words are just rhetoric. I make a statement defending the sanctity of marriage, you turn it into homophobia. You have twisted my words all afternoon. Called my opinions rhetoric, and when I corner you with truth in Church Teachings you either ignore it or say you agree but…

My last attempt, no a courthouse contract between two same sex partners is not a marriage. A contract before God between a man and a woman is a marriage. You can’t change that. Secular governments can make whatever law they want, but it won’t change truth.

Abortion is always evil, this is the truth. You can choose to stand in the truth, or your secularist society.

Now unless you care to take my words for what they are worth and not twist them, I don’t care to talk with you, it is dishonest and appears fruitless. We can disagree and have civil discourse, but I don’t see that happening anymore, I must not be enlightened like you.
 
This is why my words are just rhetoric. I make a statement defending the sanctity of marriage, you turn it into homophobia. You have twisted my words all afternoon. Called my opinions rhetoric, and when I corner you with truth in Church Teachings you either ignore it or say you agree but…

My last attempt, no a courthouse contract between two same sex partners is not a marriage. A contract before God between a man and a woman is a marriage. You can’t change that. Secular governments can make whatever law they want, but it won’t change truth.

Abortion is always evil, this is the truth. You can choose to stand in the truth, or your secularist society.

Now unless you care to take my words for what they are worth and not twist them, I don’t care to talk with you, it is dishonest and appears fruitless. We can disagree and have civil discourse, but I don’t see that happening anymore, I must not be enlightened like you.
I was asking a simple question, not trying to offend you. I find it surprising that you think that courthouse marriages invalid. Most are between men and women. I still don’t see how gay men or women ruin your life. I was looking to be enlightened.

Again I’m not upset. I’m sorry if I’ve made you so.
 
And yet we’ve spent, what 23 pages of posts debating exactly that issue. What do you think of that?

I think that it is impossible to stifle dissent by attempting to claim dissent isn’t possible. It is not only ineffective it makes one look silly.
That’s true. All this talk about people not having the right to do this, and the right to do that…that obviously they do, and they excercise that right daily. It is kind of hard to take seriously.
 
I was asking a simple question, not trying to offend you. I find it surprising that you think that courthouse marriages invalid. Most are between men and women. I still don’t see how gay men or women ruin your life. I was looking to be enlightened.

Again I’m not upset. I’m sorry if I’ve made you so.
I’m not upset, I’m disappointed. Even in your response you cast aspersions. You read past my words to see what you want MY words to mean, so what’s the point in continuing? You do not want to be enlightened, you want to enlighten me, and you cannot. I am a member of the clergy in the Church; I will always speak on behalf of Her teachings.

I never said courthouse marriages between a man and a woman were not marriages, those are your words.

My statement twice already has been that two people of the same sex cannot be “married”. Marriage is between one man and one woman, a contract before God witnessed by a minister. Now along with that is a civil license that means they are legally joined. My only comment was that calling same a sex union marriage, changes the definition of the institution of marriage, and therefore affects every married couple.

Also, you ask how this could ruin my life, I never said it would, you did. The way you change the meanings of statements shows me you lack confidence in your version of truth. Every time we disagree, and I challenge you, you turn things around on me. You’ve done that in almost every response to me and others. From the forced organ donors to me being afraid of the two men in the bed next to my house, you twist my words.

I think it’s time for you to sit back and pray instead of think. If you continue to rely on your own intellect, you will continue fighting against His Church.
 
Adolphus

**Not changing the subject, I am drawing a correlation. Contraception is immoral but legal, I don’t have to use contraception because it’s legal. No Catholic has to have an abortion because it’s legal. **

Yes you are changing the subject, a sure sign that you have no arguments left for legalizing the killing of children in the womb.

Bye-bye! :sad_bye:
 
No we are a nation of laws. Homosexuality - it’s legal but immoral. It doesn’t effect my life if my neighbor is gay. They are a good neighbor and that’s enough.
I’m not sure if you see what I’'m saying. If the reason behind making something legal is simply we’re all adults and should be able to do what we want, why do we have any laws at all? Why doesn’t the same reasoning apply to the rest of the laws that exist?
 
I’m not upset, I’m disappointed. Even in your response you cast aspersions. You read past my words to see what you want MY words to mean, so what’s the point in continuing? You do not want to be enlightened, you want to enlighten me, and you cannot. I am a member of the clergy in the Church; I will always speak on behalf of Her teachings.

I never said courthouse marriages between a man and a woman were not marriages, those are your words.

My statement twice already has been that two people of the same sex cannot be “married”. Marriage is between one man and one woman, a contract before God witnessed by a minister. Now along with that is a civil license that means they are legally joined. My only comment was that calling same a sex union marriage, changes the definition of the institution of marriage, and therefore affects every married couple.

Also, you ask how this could ruin my life, I never said it would, you did. The way you change the meanings of statements shows me you lack confidence in your version of truth. Every time we disagree, and I challenge you, you turn things around on me. You’ve done that in almost every response to me and others. From the forced organ donors to me being afraid of the two men in the bed next to my house, you twist my words.
I understand there will never be a sanctioned sacramental marriage between same sex partners. That is not what I’m asking about. No one is making the Church marry gay couples. I am focusing on civil law and how it affects the religious. I am sincere in my questions.

If a civil ceremony between a man and a woman is called a marriage. Why wouldn’t a same sex ceremony be called the same thing? God doesn’t factor in either ceremony.

So let me rephrase -How does civil ceremonies affect you as a religious person, other than being an offense to your religious beliefs.
I think it’s time for you to sit back and pray instead of think. If you continue to rely on your own intellect, you will continue fighting against His Church.
This is why I am lapsed - people telling me to stop using my God given intelligence.
 
I’m not sure if you see what I’'m saying. If the reason behind making something legal is simply we’re all adults and should be able to do what we want, why do we have any laws at all? Why doesn’t the same reasoning apply to the rest of the laws that exist?
Laws are primarily used to protect property and life. The best way I’ve heard it put is “my freedom ends where your freedom begins”
 
This is why I am lapsed - people telling me to stop using my God given intelligence.
Sorry, but you totally missed the point of this statement. God gave you talent and intellect to do HIS will, not yours. You are lapsed because you do not serve Him; you want Him to serve you. With the mindset you have you will never find peace in any denomination. Try to use the intellect God has given you to lead people to Him, not give them reasons to doubt more.

Almost every statement I have made you misrepresent. I am not your enemy, and I intend my words just as honest and open as you mean your words to be. So stop twisting and/or changing the meaning of mine. If you describe two dozen eggs as two dozen, and I say there are 24, does that mean I do not believe there are two dozen? Yes I am being absurd, it’s late and I am trying to illustrate absurdity; hope it works.😃
 
Laws are primarily used to protect property and life. The best why I’ve heard it put is “my freedom ends where your freedom begins”
Ok, see, this right here is why people have a problem with abortion. They also view laws as being for the sake of protecting property and life.

I assume you see a case where a woman is contemplating abortion as a conflict of interests. The woman does not want to have to carry a child, the child wants to live. So it comes down to the question of which one gets to trump the other, they can’t both win. Do you vote for the life of the child? Or the preferences of the mother? The problem is that in voting for the preferences of the mother one denies both life and preferences to the child. In voting for the life of the child one only denies the preferences of the mother.
 
I understand there will never be a sanctioned sacramental marriage between same sex partners. Amen!That is not what I’m asking about. No one is making the Church marry gay couples.Not yet, but it has been a subject of conversations. I am focusing on civil law and how it affects the religious. I am sincere in my questions.I do not doubt your sincerity.

If a civil ceremony between a man and a woman is called a marriage. Why wouldn’t a same sex ceremony be called the same thing? God doesn’t factor in either ceremony.

So let me rephrase -How does civil ceremonies affect you as a religious person, other than being an offense to your religious beliefs.
Because God and His Church define marriage. Civil law may declare two men married, but are they as compared to the definition of the institution of marriage? Not in the eyes of the Church. And by the way, the civil marriage between two non-Catholics, 1 man & 1 woman, is recognized by the Church as being married. If a divorced non-Catholic would approach with a new partner who is Catholic, there would have to be a decree of nullity to be free of impediment to marry in the Church.

Your last point, a civil marriage affects me only in the sense that if it is between two or even one Catholic, it is not a valid marriage, sacramental I mean. The point is, the marriage is eternal, and it is not simply an earthly contract.
 
Sorry, but you totally missed the point of this statement. God gave you talent and intellect to do HIS will, not yours. You are lapsed because you do not serve Him; you want Him to serve you. With the mindset you have you will never find peace in any denomination. Try to use the intellect God has given you to lead people to Him, not give them reasons to doubt more.

Almost every statement I have made you misrepresent. I am not your enemy, and I intend my words just as honest and open as you mean your words to be. So stop twisting and/or changing the meaning of mine. If you describe two dozen eggs as two dozen, and I say there are 24, does that mean I do not believe there are two dozen? Yes I am being absurd, it’s late and I am trying to illustrate absurdity; hope it works.😃
I am here, I read the catechism, I attended 12 years of Catholic school, still there’s a wall. I’ve obviously hit with you. Stop asking questions and just do what your told.

I don’t know why I have denounce gay people. Most of them are quite nice. The ones I live around are good neighbors. I’m glad that they can take care of each other legally. I have brotherly love for them as I try to have for all people. I honestly don’t get the Church’s stance. It’s immoral - ok. They aren’t Catholic. I’m not Muslim I’m not beholden to their morality. I love pork. (and Beer) They are free to practice their religion, I mine. The Godless theirs. As long as we can be civil, what’s the problem?
 
Because God and His Church define marriage. Civil law may declare two men married, but are they as compared to the definition of the institution of marriage? Not in the eyes of the Church. And by the way, the civil marriage between two non-Catholics, 1 man & 1 woman, is recognized by the Church as being married. If a divorced non-Catholic would approach with a new partner who is Catholic, there would have to be a decree of nullity to be free of impediment to marry in the Church.

Your last point, a civil marriage affects me only in the sense that if it is between two or even one Catholic, it is not a valid marriage, sacramental I mean. The point is, the marriage is eternal, and it is not simply an earthly contract.
But we aren’t talking about the sacrament of marriage rather the civil ceremony. Why the need to rain on their parade.
 
Ok, see, this right here is why people have a problem with abortion. They also view laws as being for the sake of protecting property and life.

I assume you see a case where a woman is contemplating abortion as a conflict of interests. The woman does not want to have to carry a child, the child wants to live. So it comes down to the question of which one gets to trump the other, they can’t both win. Do you vote for the life of the child? Or the preferences of the mother? The problem is that in voting for the preferences of the mother one denies both life and preferences to the child. In voting for the life of the child one only denies the preferences of the mother.
Yep, that’s the debate. Can’t both win. Religiously there is no compromise. Civilly we have to find some kind of solution.
 
I am here, I read the catechism, I attended 12 years of Catholic school, still there’s a wall. I’ve obviously hit with you. Stop asking questions and just do what your told.

I don’t know why I have denounce gay people. Most of them are quite nice. The ones I live around are good neighbors. I’m glad that they can take care of each other legally. I have brotherly love for them as I try to have for all people. I honestly don’t get the Church’s stance. It’s immoral - ok. They aren’t Catholic. I’m not Muslim I’m not beholden to their morality. I love pork. (and Beer) They are free to practice their religion, I mine. The Godless theirs. As long as we can be civil, what’s the problem?
This is my last post for the evening; I’m too old for this late night discussion.

The wall is reached when you don’t get the answers you like, or understand. Try this, ask questions about why the Church believes and teaches what it teaches. Not why doesn’t She change Her views, She won’t praise God! Remember what the scripture says about a solid foundation, truth is that foundation of rock. If a truth changes with time, as in our secular society, then it is not truth; it is built on sand. Why did Jesus teach decisively against divorce, because it is God’s will to marry for eternity, not convenience?

It’s not judgmental to point out right or wrong, that is charity.

Who said anything about denouncing homosexuals? I sure didn’t, and the Church most definitely does not. Hate the sin and love the sinner, that’s actually pretty easy because we are all sinners. Do healthy people go to doctors, well some do? But sinners go to church, I am a sinner I need salvation!

We have come to an agreement by the way, I too love pork and beer! Especially fresh fried hog cracklings with cold beer, with a little Cajun seasoning sprinkled on top!😃

I also am glad that people can take care of each other legally, doesn’t equate to marriage though, and it doesn’t have to.
 
But we aren’t talking about the sacrament of marriage rather the civil ceremony. Why the need to rain on their parade.
Because parading down main street where there is no parade is just walking in the street…get it? I have no problem with a cival ceremony, or contract; just don’t redifine marriag to today’s meaning. Good night sir, may God bless you and your family.
 
Yep, that’s the debate. Can’t both win. Religiously there is no compromise. Civilly we have to find some kind of solution.
I guess thats why I don’t understand why there’s a debate. they can’t both win, but one loses much more than the other, also one has no choice in this matter the other does. 🤷 When boiled down to these principles it really is a no brainer.
 
btw, OP, sorry for continuing to sidetrack your thread… I just got caught up in the discussion.

As far as I can tell the reason is because they don’t agree with all of the church’s teachings. And the reasons for that are probably too numerous to contain in one thread. 😉
 
“Guest appearance” on Catholic Answers Forum…

Q: Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?*

A: Pope Benedict XVI:

"It strikes me as significant that here in America, unlike many places in Europe, the secular mentality has not been intrinsically opposed to religion. Within the context of the separation of Church and State, American society has always been marked by a fundamental respect for religion and its public role, and, if polls are to be believed, the American people are deeply religious. But it is not enough to count on this traditional religiosity and go about business as usual, even as its foundations are being slowly undermined. A serious commitment to evangelization cannot prescind from a profound diagnosis of the real challenges the Gospel encounters in contemporary American culture.

Of course, what is essential is a correct understanding of the just autonomy of the secular order, an autonomy which cannot be divorced from God the Creator and his saving plan (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 36). Perhaps America’s brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

On a deeper level, secularism challenges the Church to reaffirm and to pursue more actively her mission in and to the world. As the Council made clear, the lay faithful have a particular responsibility in this regard. What is needed, I am convinced, is a greater sense of the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law on the one hand, and, on the other, the pursuit of authentic human good, as embodied in civil law and in personal moral decisions. In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the Church needs to promote at every level of her teaching – in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction – an apologetics aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life. In a word, the Gospel has to be preached and taught as an integral way of life, offering an attractive and true answer, intellectually and practically, to real human problems. The “dictatorship of relativism”, in the end, is nothing less than a threat to genuine human freedom, which only matures in generosity and fidelity to the truth."

(Such is really his words…make sure to read all of the above…you will see he answers the question I fictiously put to him in his real answer to a question posed to him)

*(real Q) The Holy Father is asked to give his assessment of the challenge of increasing secularism in public life and relativism in intellectual life, and his advice on how to confront these challenges pastorally and evangelize more effectively.

(more of his ansser vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_response-bishops_en.html)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top