Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”


That’s actually a good question.

Just so I understand, the example is someone who is a Catholic, believes in the Catholic faith, adheres to it, however has a personal pro-abortion belief though does not vote in favor of it or promote it – is this the scenario?

This could be a temptation the guy is dealing with, though has not submitted to it.

If you took someone on the opposite end, like Vice President Joe Biden for example who is a baptized Catholics and says he is pro-life but works in favor to promote abortion and says he won’t impose his pro-life position, this is actually worse, because he is claiming to know the truth but rejecting it anyway. Where as the other guy does personally believe in abortion (which is wrong) but chooses to stay by Church teaching.

It would be a good idea for the guy to learn and grow and overcome the temptation to support abortion, but that is far better than actually being actively pro-abortion.

Better “I am personally pro-choice but will continue to support the pro-life effort” and “I am personally pro-life but won’t stop someone from killing her child.”


What does this mean?

Currently, if I were to tell a doctor that I was planning to kill someone, he would be mandated to tell someone. So much for the right to privacy, eh?

The right to privacy, like the right to free speech, has to have some boundaries.


It depends on if you can still be Catholic while holding heretical beliefs.


According to the RCC the answer to that is an unequivocal YES. Once Catholic, Always Catholic. Or so I’m repeatedly told.


In regards to the unborn, in a secular system of laws and ethics, this statement is matter of belief and is very difficult to legislate. I’m not arguing that it isn’t a very immoral thing to do or that somebody isn’t being killed; i am simply stating the reality of the situation. Secular states that have approved pro-choice are very unlikely to return to anti-abortion laws because it would involve an invasion of privacy based on beliefs, and forcing women to full term will never be accepted.


Heresy is also not very Christian. No one who advocates slaughtering children should dare to have the temerity to call himself a Christian, let alone a Catholic. Baptism has nothing to do with this.


Anyone who supports the mindless slaughter of children is a heretic, and has thrown away his right to be called a follower of Christ. I don’t have to be a priest to see evil and heresy.


The laws will fall where they will, true. But the assertion of privacy is a deception. As the poster pointed out the assertion of privacy is a quicksand of a-moral thought. It simply means nothing.


It would be better not to throw the term heretic around. It has a specific legal definition and so it doesn’t help much in this context.


An obstinate persistence in a belief contrary to Church teaching on an issue of faith or morality is heresy.


That’s the definition of heresy. You called actual people heretics.

Can you see the difference?


They know what the Holy Mother Church teaches.

They deliberately and freely choose to oppose it.

Hence, they are heretics of their own free will.

I’m very ‘pro-choice’ when it comes o heresy. :grinning:


And the point is, you are not qualified to pronounce someone a heretic. That’s just a fact. And so it’s counterproductive to do so. It’s rhetorical posturing.


A “heretic” by definition is someone who commits heresy.

If you define someone’s utterances as a heresy, you are calling them a heretic


I am not calling ‘someone’ a heretic. I am calling people who are obstinate in their opposition to Church teaching heretics. Because that is what they are, and I am not commiting calumny by saying this.

Feel free to judge me as you will.


No, that’s two different but related things. Look it up.


I’m not judging you, I’m pointing out that you are using the term “heretic” in an anti ecclesial way.
Serves no purpose.


Anti-ecclesial, eh? How very non-judgemental. :thinking:


Yes. Anti ecclesial can mean to speak outside the mind of the Church, or in a way that Church does not speak, or outside one’s own authority and competence.
Thanks for asking.


Anti-ecclesial means anti-Roman Catholic. Perhaps un-ecclesial is a better term.

Both are unfounded and untrue.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit