That’s not really a discussion people have before Mass.
Again, you know that is not what I mean. I am talking about having honest, thoughtful conversations with Catholics who call themselves “pro choice”.
I haven’t met anyone like that in my parish or anywhere.
(I think it’s called an ad hominem attack, no? See - Protestants can use Latin! )
Incorrect. They’ve not separated themselves, nor can they even as heretics. At least not from the Catholic POV.
I say that as someone who actually believes contrary to that.
You and the people you’re engaging are talking past each other, primarily because you aren’t speaking the same language. My read is you’re talking the language of pre-Vatican II, and they’re seeing things from a post-Vatican II perspective.
except it didn’t. it deals with late-term. why didn’t they sacrifice the child earlier?
are you advocating child sacrifice right up until birth? why not up until the age a kid can be on its own.
the solution is to follow the church’s teachings
i believe this was a targeted poll, besides the church isn’t a democracy
nonsense, they have a different approach to the solution. money hasn’t been the answer, it just destroyed the family.
sacrificing a child isn’t a policy that can be justified by other policies.
i’m stunned any catholic can argue for child sacrifice in any way
since when is the failed policy of throwing money at problems the only acceptable answer?
seems like we are going back to this on some college campuses.
sinners and those causing current scandal are 2 different things
we don’t have a free society for a number of reasons. we may have the freest society available but it is not really free. the group is forcing its will on the rest of us in a variety of ways. it doesn’t matter which group is in charge.
I see most Republican politicians as pro-hypocrites. The spout anti-abortion rhetoric to gain votes, but do nothing once in office.
They currently control the House, Senate and the White House, yet the highlight of their accomplishments is a tax break for the wealthy, who do not need tax relief. They did try to undo health care, but were unsuccessful.
Where’s their bill to outlaw abortion? Nowhere. They use Christians to stay in office. That is their bottom line!
I’d like to think good theology doesn’t have an expiration date.
Yes, from the Catholic point of view. There is an excellent explanation of this here:
Q. 2. So what must a Catholic do to be entitled to the honour of being called a Catholic?
A. 2. He must meet all of the following criteria without exception:
he must be baptized.
he must continually strive to learn about the teachings of the Catholic Church.
through special strength of the Holy Spirit that was received during the Sacrament of Confirmation, he must spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross. [C.C.C. # 1303]
he must to go to Confession on a regular basis.
he must receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist on a regular basis.
he must go to Holy Mass every Sunday and on all the days of obligation.
without exception, he must accept all of the teachings of the Catholic Doors the Papacy, regarding the Magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Trinity, Salvation, Marian Dogmas, Papal Encyclicals, the proclamations of all the Church Councils and early Fathers, etc… This means renouncing abortion, same sex marriage, married priests, euthanasia, etc…
he must marry within the Catholic Church through the Sacrament of Marriage unless a special dispensation has been received from the local Bishop.
he must financially support his parish. He who seeks financial compensation from the church on the grounds of abuse, he commits spiritual suicide.
he must have a forgiving heart, being prepared to forgive anyone and everyone of their sin(s) no matter how horrible it may appear to be. Remember, Saint Paul was a murderer of Christians, including women and children.
he must be obedient to the Pope and the local Bishop who is responsible for maintaining the unity of the Catholic Church.
Finally, it should be said that he who corrupts one or more dogmas of the Catholic Church by rejecting or distorting them, be it on the matter of going to Church on Sunday or on the subject of birth control pills, he is a heretic because he adheres to heresy(ies). A heretic can no longer claim to be a Catholic!
I understand that. I was raised Catholic. But I literally disagree with almost ALL Catholic institutional teaching:
- Homosexual rights
- Birth control
- Right to choose (within limits)
- Equality of women
- Importance of the environment
- Financial support of the poor
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of speech
- Empathy for animals
- Stem cells
- Non-inheritance of sin and guilt
- Death penalty
- Importance and accuracy of science
- municipal independence
- Historical accuracy
I mean, there is literally nothing I have found that agree with regarding the institutional beliefs and dogma of the Church. Note that this is NOT the same as what you will hear outwardly or of course what Jesus says. I’m talking institutionally, dogmatically, and theologically.
Why are you making this false equivalence? Every point you make refers to another human being.
This all comes down to when you think a fetus is viable and deserves independence in terms of human rights.
Catholic believe that life begins at conception and that the fetus should be treated as a human life at that point.
I believe that in a free society, you must give women the right to control their bodies up to a certain point. Then that fetus is an independent human being and MUST be treated as a human being. I don’t support abortion rights past a certain point. And personally, I would never recommend an abortion at any point.
The reasoning makes sense, but they have to take into account the mark that Baptism leaves in the soul.
I’m pretty sure it is also not official.
The fetus isn’t a part of their body and there is an obvious distinction between the two.
At about 18 weeks pregnant I don’t see how any pro-choice arguments can continue to be made. Maybe sooner.
The Church’s teaching is completely ineffective, immoral, and in many cases, evil. Consider how the spread of AIDS has exploded in Africa where the Church’s teaching against condom usage is considered a key if not primary factor.
The actual number from pew research is 4% of all people and 8% of Catholics do not think birth control is immoral. Not sure what you mean by ‘targeted’.
You got that right.
I thunk it is funny to hear this from a Catholic when the Bible is chock full of child sacrifices, torture, and the justified murder of children by God. God directly or indirectly murders 37 million people including children in the Bible.
That’s not the argument. The argument is that people DO HAVE SEX.
No one is saying not to teach abstinence (though even some Republicans are against this).
But if they have sex, provide free birth control. It’s financially neutral, stops the spread of disease, and prevents unwanted pregnancies. Why do you not support this? Your position is not rational.
When we change the consequences of an act, people make different choices.
I remember when the speed limit was reduced to 55 mph and there were heavy consequences on states which did not enforce this.
I lived next door to a state which took this latter very seriously and gave out speeding tickets like crazy.
On the highway which traversed the border of this state and my state, you could see the result: brake lights glistened as drivers slowed down to enter this state.
Now enforcement is the same --pretty lax!-- in both states. Guess what? Everyone speeds!
Thus, the more birth control is distributed, the safer it is perceived to be, the more people will have sex outside of marriage.
I think there are other factors at play here. One is that sex is seen at a leisure activity rather than as a life-creating/life-changing activity.
What you are arguing is not about giving women control of their own bodies, but giving them ultimate control (to determine the life or death) of another human being.
As for the argument about a human being independent, is a new-born baby an independent human being? Could it survive independently without its parents? Or what about someone infirm in a nursing home who needs to be fed and have basic functions carried out for them? Or a person on life-support, are they an independent human being?
The argument that bases the right to life not on being a human being, but on whether a person is not dependent on another, is very problematic.
Yes. And it is also seen as something the everyone should have a right to, with whoever they wish to, without any consequences, and that this is something that ought to be celebrated.
I find it difficult to digest this response. I believe, an abortion is, simply put, the murder of a human being developing in the mothers womb. It is a separate human being, distinct from the mother, alive from the moment of conception.
You cannot have a free society, if you murder the most vulnerable in that society.
It is none of these things - it is divine law. “Thou shalt not murder”. Period.
I do not see this as a nuanced issue worthy of further discussion or debate any more that I see any other murder of an innocent person as such.
I am not a democrat or republican. I am not even an American for that matter. This is simply self evident.