do you consider pro-choice people to be catholics?

[etep513]

Over the years, I talked to a number of people who claimed to be Catholic but also supported abortion. I am absolutely stunned! The Catholic Church always taught that you should spend your life trying to walk in Christ's footsteps. The 10 Commandments clearly stated that you should not kill other people. Also, in the Bible, it said that parents should be fair to their children and that their children should be good to their parents in return. Killing a child before it's born is CERTAINLY not fair. Every principle of Catholicism is against abortion, euthanasia, and other atrocities. Some of those people tried to say that in some cases abortion is necessary, but in reality it isn't (the 3 instances they listed were unexpected pregnancy, rape, and medical complications).

1. People who don't want kids should not be participating in sexual activities at all (especially not adulterous/promiscuous acts).
2. If rape is the case, then the woman is still obligated to give birth to the child since the child is innocent of any wrongdoing. If she cannot support the child, then she must give it up for adoption.
3. If a woman is in danger of dying in case she gives birth, she should give birth anyway. Christ died for us on the cross (and humanity is guilty of a myriad of sins). A mother should be more than willing to give up her life for the sake of her child.

People who are pro-choice have no place in the Catholic Church. Whenever a person claims to be both, I automatically know that the person is not Catholic since they are not following Christ. Have you guys had similar experiences?

 

[Quiddity]

It's like claiming to be in a monogamous marriage while cheating. It's an absolute abhorrent position to hold in light of what the Catholic Church teaches.

I can't see how any committed catholic can justify there pro-choice stance.

I have far more respect if someone is honest about there disagreements with the Catholic Church and seizes to be catholic then to continue to call themselves catholic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you really agree with the OP, Victor?

Especially with respect to point #3?

Such a sentiment is also expressed here:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Abortion

No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

 

[Quiddity]

Do you really agree with the OP, Victor?

Especially with respect to point #3?

Such a sentiment is also expressed here:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Abortion

No, you're right. Point 3 would be the only exception where a catholic would be free to make such a decision. Ultimately, the Church is after saving innocent lives and when faced with "which life should be saved?" gets into an area that really can't be answered by anyone as it relates to equal value.

But I do agree with his other points.

 

[Dunemeister]

If I may, I'd like to add a bit of a spin to the original question. Would it be possible for a Catholic to hold the following position.

(a) Abortion is morally reprehensible and ought never to be done except to save the life of the mother where there are no other options.

(b) These strictures, although fine for Catholics, are not supported in the wider community of which we are a part. Therefore, we support public policy that permits abortions outside case (a). This isn't to say that we support unfettered access to abortion. Restrictions might be applied, but as a matter of public policy, it would be best to permit abortions in at least cases of rape or incest.

 

[etep513]

Do you really agree with the OP, Victor?

Especially with respect to point #3?

Such a sentiment is also expressed here:

Well it is the truth.

No, you're right. Point 3 would be the only exception where a catholic would be free to make such a decision. Ultimately, the Church is after saving innocent lives and when faced with "which life should be saved?" gets into an area that really can't be answered by anyone as it relates to equal value.

But I do agree with his other points.

Point 3 is the only exception? When a woman's life is in danger before child birth, God is testing the strength of that woman's faith. If a woman has an abortion in that case, it is still murder. It is that woman's obligation to pray to God to spare her life and the life of her child. That is not something that people can choose without sinning against God. If the woman dies during childbirth, then she died doing the right thing. Christ EXPLICITLY stated that in order to be one of his followers, you must be willing to sacrifice your life in the name of righteousness. A person should be willing to sacrifice his or her life for the sake of others. That is what Christ did for us, and people are absolutely EVIL. A child committed no sins at all. Therefore the mother should be more than willing to sacrifice herself for the sake of her child. Also, remember that the mother would have been alive for a while. During that time, she committed a number of sins (obviously some people more than others). Sacrificing her life will show God that she may have sinned in the past, but she is righteous deep down inside.

If I may, I'd like to add a bit of a spin to the original question. Would it be possible for a Catholic to hold the following position.

(a) Abortion is morally reprehensible and ought never to be done except to save the life of the mother where there are no other options.

(b) These strictures, although fine for Catholics, are not supported in the wider community of which we are a part. Therefore, we support public policy that permits abortions outside case (a). This isn't to say that we support unfettered access to abortion. Restrictions might be applied, but as a matter of public policy, it would be best to permit abortions in at least cases of rape or incest.

In response to Point A, that is certainly not an option (for the reasons that I listed above). In response to Point B, the wider community that we are a part of is extremely diabolical and sinful. Most people choose to have premarital sex. People do not fear and love God as they should. Many people choose not to go to church. I could keep going on but I won't. My response to you is that God punished the people around us in the past (like the jews in the old testament) and God will certainly do it again. Rape still isn't a reason to murder an innocent child. The unborn child did absolutely nothing. God is testing the strength of that woman's character. If that woman is a true catholic, then she will put all of her personal desires aside and complete the mission that God gave her (which is to raise the child with as much love and care as she can possibly provide). If she has ABSOLUTELY no means by which she can raise the child, then she must give it up for adoption. Abortion is never acceptable because the child is innocent of any wrong-doing.

 

[Quiddity]

Etep513,

Please provide a legitimate catholic document that condemns a women who decided to let nature take it's course in regards to a fetus stuck in the fallopian tubes.

Take into consideration that the death of the life is not something that is intended.

 

[etep513]

Etep513,

Please provide a legitimate catholic document that condemns a women who decided to let nature take it's course in regards to a fetus stuck in the fallopian tubes.

Take into consideration that the death of the life is not something that is intended.

If a woman let nature take it's course, then she would not be having the abortion in the first place. She would simply let things happen as God wants them to happen.

 

[zenzero]

Friend etep513,
Personally though have studied in a catholic school but am not a christian and so am not qualified to respond. Yes, do love Jesus.
However, since your post is in a specific category have to abstain from commenting as per Rf rules.
Love & rgds

 

[Runlikethewind]

The question at stake here is about whether it is possible to be a pro-choice Catholic. The question is about what makes a person Catholic. And as difficult as it is to accept sometimes what makes a person Catholic is not primarily what they believe. When a person is baptized, the Church teaches that an indelible mark is left on their soul. Once a person is baptized into the Church, the only way to not be a catholic is to renounce the faith and join another. If a person is baptized and goes to Church and believes that abortion is ok, then they are still Catholic. Bad Catholics, poor Catholic, misguided Catholic, but still Catholic.

 

[Father Heathen]

the Church is after saving innocent lives

Oh, is that why they help the spread of AIDS with their anti-contraceptive stance?

 

[etep513]

Oh, is that why they help the spread of AIDS with their anti-contraceptive stance?

AIDS would not be spreading as quickly as it is today if people simply had one partner. Also, the main problem in those parts of the world is that they do not have adequate medicine and testing. A condom isn't going to prevent HIV. My point is that people need to stop having so much sex.

 

[Quiddity]

The question at stake here is about whether it is possible to be a pro-choice Catholic. The question is about what makes a person Catholic. And as difficult as it is to accept sometimes what makes a person Catholic is not primarily what they believe. When a person is baptized, the Church teaches that an indelible mark is left on their soul. Once a person is baptized into the Church, the only way to not be a catholic is to renounce the faith and join another. If a person is baptized and goes to Church and believes that abortion is ok, then they are still Catholic. Bad Catholics, poor Catholic, misguided Catholic, but still Catholic.

Eons ago, only major excommunications was seen as making a person not Catholic (excommunication vitandi, to be shunned), not minor excommunication (excommunicandi tolerati, tolerated). All non-sententia (that is so-called automatic) excommunications were of the latter sort, will sententia excommunications (those imposed by a sentence of a judge) could be either.

However now there is only latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae excommunications, so called "automatic" and ones imposed. Anathemas, maranthas, vitandi, tolerati, those distinctions are gone.

But...there absence doesn't mean one should stretch the meaning of "catholic" to those who are seperated from the Body of Christ. What constitutes seperation of the Body?...in short, mortal sin.

The Church's objection toward abortion is pretty clear and it's easy to see how people can fall under the conditions of what is a mortal sin. It's not like everybody that has abortions or votes in support of them are willfully ignorant.

Even non-catholics are well aware of where the Church stands on it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eons ago, only major excommunications was seen as making a person not Catholic (excommunication vitandi, to be shunned), not minor excommunication (excommunicandi tolerati, tolerated). All non-sententia (that is so-called automatic) excommunications were of the latter sort, will sententia excommunications (those imposed by a sentence of a judge) could be either.

Quick question: I've heard descriptions of the effects of baptism like Runlikethewind's before, and the common thread has been that it imparts a permanent spiritual mark - that once it's been received, a person is Catholic, and nothing that the baptized person can do can change that fact. He or she might do things to take themselves out of communion with the church, even shunned, but the person still remains a member... i.e. "Catholic". Is this a recent change in the position of the Church?

I'm thinking back to stories I've heard of the Spanish Inquisition (BTW - I'm hesitant to bring up the Inquisition in the Catholic DIR, but hopefully you'll agree that it's not in a "look at those bad Catholics" sort of way): as I understand it, the Church declared its authority over its membership, and it included anyone who had been baptized. Even if the person in question was a Jew, lived as a Jew and had never set foot in a Catholic Church, if a household servant had secretly baptized the person as an infant, then the person was deemed to be Catholic... even though as a practicing Jew, that person likely would've done a number of things over the course of his or her life that would have warranted some sort of excommunication (denying the Trinity, for instance). In claiming authority over people like these, didn't the Church implicitly claim that they stayed Catholics regardless of what they had done or how they lived?

However now there is only latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae excommunications, so called "automatic" and ones imposed. Anathemas, maranthas, vitandi, tolerati, those distinctions are gone.

Didn't the Papal Bull regarding the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary actually use the term "anathema maranatha"? It was only from 1950 - is the change you're talking about something that came out of the Second Vatican Council?

 

[Quiddity]

Quick question: I've heard descriptions of the effects of baptism like Runlikethewind's before, and the common thread has been that it imparts a permanent spiritual mark - that once it's been received, a person is Catholic, and nothing that the baptized person can do can change that fact. He or she might do things to take themselves out of communion with the church, even shunned, but the person still remains a member... i.e. "Catholic". Is this a recent change in the position of the Church?

I'm thinking back to stories I've heard of the Spanish Inquisition (BTW - I'm hesitant to bring up the Inquisition in the Catholic DIR, but hopefully you'll agree that it's not in a "look at those bad Catholics" sort of way): as I understand it, the Church declared its authority over its membership, and it included anyone who had been baptized. Even if the person in question was a Jew, lived as a Jew and had never set foot in a Catholic Church, if a household servant had secretly baptized the person as an infant, then the person was deemed to be Catholic... even though as a practicing Jew, that person likely would've done a number of things over the course of his or her life that would have warranted some sort of excommunication (denying the Trinity, for instance). In claiming authority over people like these, didn't the Church implicitly claim that they stayed Catholics regardless of what they had done or how they lived?

I think I may have misunderstood Runlikethewind. What he is talking about is a Catholic doctine known as "sacramental character" which basically leaves a ineffaceable tattoo on the soul. In that sense, yes we are all catholic for life.

I was talking more about being part of the Body of Christ, which is more then just having a mark on the soul, but being in the right state.

Didn't the Papal Bull regarding the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary actually use the term "anathema maranatha"? It was only from 1950 - is the change you're talking about something that came out of the Second Vatican Council?

Yes, only in that it doesn't give "degrees" of anathema's, she just severs one off completely.

Sorry about the misunderstanding RLW.

 

[Quiddity]

If I may, I'd like to add a bit of a spin to the original question. Would it be possible for a Catholic to hold the following position.

(a) Abortion is morally reprehensible and ought never to be done except to save the life of the mother where there are no other options.

(b) These strictures, although fine for Catholics, are not supported in the wider community of which we are a part. Therefore, we support public policy that permits abortions outside case (a). This isn't to say that we support unfettered access to abortion. Restrictions might be applied, but as a matter of public policy, it would be best to permit abortions in at least cases of rape or incest.

I don't see how it could.

 

[Draka]

I don't understand why it would be any different for a Catholic than anyone else who is against abortion but pro-choice. One can be personally against abortion and still hold that, even though they believe it to be wrong, it is not for them to decide such things for others. Not everyone believes the same way and have the same morals. Why is it impossible for a Catholic to accept that and base their legal stance thusly?

 

[Quiddity]

I don't understand why it would be any different for a Catholic than anyone else who is against abortion but pro-choice. One can be personally against abortion and still hold that, even though they believe it to be wrong, it is not for them to decide such things for others. Not everyone believes the same way and have the same morals. Why is it impossible for a Catholic to accept that and base their legal stance thusly?

Because not everything carries the same moral weight for us. There are things that perhaps even you wouldn't mind imposing, we all reach a threshold and if we are right about it being an innocent life, then I think that's worth fighting for, don't you?

No one for example would say a word if we imposed into law anti-rape laws into legislation. This just happens to be an area we agree on but if it wasn't, I wouldn't lose any sleep at night if people kept yelling at me to stop imposing my beliefs on them.

 

[Father Heathen]

AIDS would not be spreading as quickly as it is today if people simply had one partner. Also, the main problem in those parts of the world is that they do not have adequate medicine and testing. A condom isn't going to prevent HIV. My point is that people need to stop having so much sex.

Of course contraceptives aren't fool proof, but they're immensely better than using none at all. Denouncing and discouraging the use of contraceptives is completely ignorant, reckless and irresponsible. It's ridicilous to think that using Jesus voodoo to repress people's libido is actually an effective tactic against the AIDS epidemic.

 

[Mister Emu]

Heathen,

Are there any studies/reasons that would compel one to beleive that while disregarding Church teachings on Marriage, sex, and monogamy they faithfully adhere to the teachings about ABC?