Understanding abortion, the Catechism and voting

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

The Catholic Church has not been narrow minded about abortion. The cases where a mother's life is at risk has been stated and addressed numerous times. You are now making something out of nothing.

Forgive me,

Jack

Please don't twist what I have said.

I didn't say the Catholic Church is narrow minded, I said that they are using the term, "Abortion," narrowly.


Jim

 

[neeners]

Please don't twist what I have said.

I didn't say the Catholic Church is narrow minded, I said that they are using the term, "Abortion," narrowly.


Jim

Interesting. It's good to see you over here Jim. It's me "anamchara" I shamelessly wanted to say hello.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

According to Tim Staples, who is a great Catholic apologist, if a Catholic votes for a pro-choice candidate when there is a viable pro-life candidate on the ticket, they commit a moral evil. And I must say: I agree

 

[Budgie]

hi,
This is my own personal opinion although perhaps not politically correct. You are only responsible for your own sin, not for the sin of another person. If you have specifically supported a candidate on grounds that they were pro-abortion or "pro-choice" then you may have committed a serious venial sin but not a mortal sin. However, sometimes you may not have a choice but to vote for a candidate that is pro-choice especially here in Britain. We also have a duty of citizenship although some pro-lifers here spoil their vote. But this is not acceptable for everyone. I think I heard that the Catholic Church in the US encouraged Catholics to vote for George Bush although he also started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq which looked bad to us over here. Mother Teresa said that abortion is a war within the womb so we may consider outlawing abortion to be a first priority. If we cannot look after or care for our own children we cannot look after or care for other peoples' children.

See you all.

 

[Nayrb]

"Pro-life" is a term that sems less well defined that "pro-choice". A pro-choicer specifically supports the right of a woman to choose to procure an abortion. So-called "pro-lifers" are all over the map. Some contend that favoring making abortion illegal (or evem just making it a state's rights issue) is sufficient to call oneself pro-life.

The definition I would use (and I suspect most other Catholics agree with me on this) is that in order to be pro-life, one must:

Support the right to life for all people from conception to natural death.

Oppose the death penalty except where absolutely necesarry. Most agree that it is not necesarry in developed countries.

Oppose Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Oppose abortion.

Oppose unjust war.

Oppose embrionic stem cell research.

Oppose the proliferation and needless stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.

Feed the hungry.

Heal the sick.

I feel compelled to second this. It become readily apparent to a Catholic that his definition of pro-life can sometimes be at odds with that of another person while sharing in political discourse.

 

[Nayrb]

According to Tim Staples, who is a great Catholic apologist, if a Catholic votes for a pro-choice candidate when there is a viable pro-life candidate on the ticket, they commit a moral evil. And I must say: I agree

But who decides what makes a viable pro-life alternative? This is where I think sweepingly generalized statements of "If you vote for X candidate or Y party you are guilty of supporting abortion and must refrain from receiving the Eucharist" start to break down.

Maybe if our Bishops would come out and make it explicit or if the Vatican were to have some sort of organization which can vet candidates and parties. However with such an option comes the prospect of losing the church's 503(c) tax exempt status.

As you can see trying to narrowly define these things starts a very sticky mess.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

But who decides what makes a viable pro-life alternative?

How about the one who doesn't promise to be abortion giant Planned Parenthood's number 1 supporter? How about the one who doesn't make Catholics choose between him and their Catholic faith? How about a war hero who can understand those who serve in the armed forces because he's walked in their shoes? How about the one who has the courage to publically say that Roe V. Wade was a mistake even though he says it on a TV show with hosts that are strongly pro-abortion and with an audience that is very hostile toward the pro-life position and even boos him for saying it? How about the one who has the audacity to choose a pro-life female for his running mate? I know this opportunity to choose one such candidate has come and gone, but I'm just trying to make a general point. With all the pro-abortion and anti-traditional family legislation that has been pouring out of Washington since the moment of you know who's election, at least I know that wasn't because of my vote.
.

 

[D'Ann]

Mod Hat


Enjoy the conversation, but please avoid getting into a political discussion.

God's peace

 

[vijendrasnv]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Hi,[/FONT]
Personally, I believe that abortion is so intrinsically evil and horrific and very much a genocide against unborn helpless babies... babies that should be protected by their mother and yet, for whatever reasons, the baby is rejected and unwanted by it's mother to the point of the mother having her baby aborted.[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Pro-life" is a term that seems less well defined that "pro-choice". A pro-choicer specifically supports the right of a woman to choose to procure an abortion. So-called "pro-lifers" are all over the map. Some contend that favoring making abortion illegal (or evem just making it a state's rights issue) is sufficient to call one pro-life.[/FONT]

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

This is a cathecism forum and as such the relevant point is that that church's teaching is that the intentional killing of a child in the womb is not permissible and constitutes grave matter.

The idea to end discussion on politics seems ill advised as the church has teachings with regard to political conduct on this matter that could be discussed with out resorting to hostility and name calling.

Additionally the church is a political as well as spiritual entity and rightfully so, such that to say in a catechism forum that we can not speak of politics is to also tell us we can not talk of our religion.

My intention by making this statement is not to test the rules but to point out that to interpret them this strictly is to give license to ban ALL discussion on religious matters of political consequence (and eventually all religious matters.).

 

[Sonny1954]

Labelling someone who is pro-choice as "pro-abortion" is substituting sloganeering for thinking. The fallacy of their reasoning is more easily seen in other "less hot-button" issues.

I am opposed to smoking. I find it irritating to be around. I know people are doing themselves bodily harm by smoking. Yet I don't think that making smoking illegal in all instances is not a viable (or constitutional) option. Does that make me "pro-smoking?" It does under the pro-choice=pro-abortion logic.

I do not hunt. I find it revolting. I've never fired a gun in my life. But I do not propose to make hunting illegal. Does that make me "pro-hunting" and complicit in all of those deer heads which are mounted over countless fireplaces? I guess so, using that same logic.

Many Catholics who are pro-choice are also anti-abortion. We believe, however, that this is also a medical decision which neither a state legislator nor a Bishop is qualified to make.

 

[Davidnic]

I think the issue is, if someone feels that medical procedures that might result in an abortion are alright, if all measures are taken to save all lives...then that is on thing. But if someone feels that abortion as a function of choice (not as the unintended result of a medical procedure) can not be outlawed then they are pro choice.

It can't be compared to hunting and smoking because there is a fundamental right to life for every human and outside of legitimate defense (which is not an issue in this) a life can not be directly taken for any reason. Hunting and smoking are not the same level of intrinsically evil and do not remove a natural law right from a human being.

A medical procedure that directly takes the life of an innocent human being without their input or any attempt to save them (no matter how slim the chance) is not a moral act.

Also, as far as a constitutionally viable option; outlawing abortion as a function of choice (not ready to have a kid, don't want one, poor...ect) is the same as saying you can not kill someone if it benefits you or you can not steal. So there is a narrow set of circumstances where medical procedures that can cause abortion as an unintended consequence must be considered. But in the majority of abortions, which are based on choice, they can certainly be outlawed just like any other type of killing that violates the natural law rights of a human being is also outlawed in the light of the natural law basis of the founding documents of the United States.

You have many doctors on record who have said there is no case where a direct abortion is necessary medically since there are also options in those situations where efforts can be made to save all lives involved even if the death of the fetus is foreseen and unwanted. Those situations are a separate argument in moral theology, law and all of that than the majority of abortions by choice.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

Many Catholics who are pro-choice are also anti-abortion. We believe, however, that this is also a medical decision which neither a state legislator nor a Bishop is qualified to make.

The Church has every right to make the choice for you considering this is an infallible, unchanging part of the faith.

Unlike, the death penalty, which a few current Popes deeply scarred by authoritarian regimes generally advise against. They are wrong, but this is not claimed to be an infallible teaching.

I might go to tell for the executions I've supported.

Unless you repent, you are going to hell for your baby killing ways.

If everyone else is going to preach infectious modern relativism, I guess I'll have to preach some Catholicism.

Hell is real, and by rejecting part of the faith, you reject all of it. By rejecting the faith, you reject God.

If you continue your ways you will burn in hell.

As as I said to you in another thread, if I died right now, like any other time since I've been of age, I'd go directly to hell. I would not pass go, I would not collect 200 dollars.

At least now I know I'll have company.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think the issue is, if someone feels that medical procedures that might result in an abortion are alright, if all measures are taken to save all lives...then that is on thing. But if someone feels that abortion as a function of choice (not as the unintended result of a medical procedure) can not be outlawed then they are pro choice.

It can't be compared to hunting and smoking because there is a fundamental right to life for every human and outside of legitimate defense (which is not an issue in this) a life can not be directly taken for any reason. Hunting and smoking are not the same level of intrinsically evil and do not remove a natural law right from a human being.

A medical procedure that directly takes the life of an innocent human being without their input or any attempt to save them (no matter how slim the chance) is not a moral act.

Also, as far as a constitutionally viable option; outlawing abortion as a function of choice (not ready to have a kid, don't want one, poor...ect) is the same as saying you can not kill someone if it benefits you or you can not steal. So there is a narrow set of circumstances where medical procedures that can cause abortion as an unintended consequence must be considered. But in the majority of abortions, which are based on choice, they can certainly be outlawed just like any other type of killing that violates the natural law rights of a human being is also outlawed in the light of the natural law basis of the founding documents of the United States.

You have many doctors on record who have said there is no case where a direct abortion is necessary medically since there are also options in those situations where efforts can be made to save all lives involved even if the death of the fetus is foreseen and unwanted. Those situations are a separate argument in moral theology, law and all of that than the majority of abortions by choice.

So, in essence, "pro-choice" is the support of killing babies while in the womb which is a grave sin where one loses sanctifying grace.

Thanks be to God for Confession and Divine Mercy.

 

[Sonny1954]

The Church has a right and obligation to guide its members in matters of faith or religious doctrine. The same could be said of a minister of any Christian denomination. It does not, in my view, have the right to tell its congregants for whom to vote for public office or to exert ecclesiastical pressure on the President or a Congressman, for examples. I think if the Pope or any Protestant minister tried to influence an office holder -- who was elected to that office by believers and non-believers alike -- on how to conduct the public's business, then that cleric has over-stepped his or her bounds.

 

[Rhamiel]

The Church has a right and obligation to guide its members in matters of faith or religious doctrine. The same could be said of a minister of any Christian denomination. It does not, in my view, have the right to tell its congregants for whom to vote for public office or to exert ecclesiastical pressure on the President or a Congressman, for examples. I think if the Pope or any Protestant minister tried to influence an office holder -- who was elected to that office by believers and non-believers alike -- on how to conduct the public's business, then that cleric has over-stepped his or her bounds.

interesting POV
several things kinda jumped out at me that shows you have a modernest way of looking at things (or adversly I have a medieval way of looking at things)
The Church has an obligation to guied its members on matters of faith
but was not the Church given by God to all mankind? we are to be a city on a hill, a shinning light
also you said that the Pope should not influence any office holder who is elected by believers and non-believers alike.
I would assume you mean that because you think that the elected official gets his authoirty from the people, governments rule by the concent of the governed
but Romans 13:1 says that all authoirty comes from God
it is to Him that we are ultimatly accountable to
and His laws trump any man made laws or traditions

 

[Sonny1954]

Yes, I suppose that I am a "modernist" in some ways, though I've never actually applied the term.

I was writing in the context of present-day, or the modern, United States. I am a Catholic and an American and I see no conflict between the two. As someone educated in the discipline of History I am certainly aware of others in earlier times who saw an inherent conflict between the two. The result was anti-Catholic prejudice, discrimination and sometimes violence against Catholics, which followed from their belief that Catholics were "subversive" or inherently "Un-American." Obviously I reject that view.

Like it or not, we do not live in a Catholic country. I grew up in a distinctly Protestant America. I believe that today we live in a non-religious society. I believe that the best arrangement for our society is for a politician's religion to be his own private affair; neither imposed on him by the state nor imposed upon the state by him. Nor do I believe that such an arrangement condemns or endangers a person's immortal soul.

For my own part, I try to "render unto Caesar" by fulfilling my responsiblities as a citizen and to God what belongs Him. God will be my ultimate judge, not the United States government nor the Roman magestarium.