Are pro choice Catholics really Catholics

football5680 said:

Catholics must oppose abortion and they cannot be indifferent or simply say let them choose what they want to do. Even if nothing changes, we will be innocent of this sin before God and the people who are condemned will have no excuse.

Click to expand...

What happens in the case of, say, a 15-year-old who becomes pregnant and is threatened with the loss of the security of her home if she doesn't obtain an abortion? Does the (alleged) sin of abortion taint her for eternity because she caved under duress?

I really am curious to know what others think about this; it seems the rule is that all people involved with an abortion are heretics in the eyes of the RCC and possibly destined for a fate apart from God, etc. But that view seems to go directly against the version of God that Jesus exemplified.

Hmmm... That's a very interesting point that you've raised.

The belief in the sanctity of life is very important to Catholicism however, I cannot simply believe that life begins at conception, I simply do not think that it does, it doesn't make biological sense to me. I honestly don't like the ideas behind ensoulment either, I think that the carnality of the flesh is infused with spirit, we cannot differentiate between the two. I hold both these views along with the tension of my feminist disposition, I cannot accept that women should not have full and utter autonomy, a woman's body belongs to her.

Soma Seer said:

What happens in the case of, say, a 15-year-old who becomes pregnant and is threatened with the loss of the security of her home if she doesn't obtain an abortion? Does the (alleged) sin of abortion taint her for eternity because she caved under duress?

I really am curious to know what others think about this; it seems the rule is that all people involved with an abortion are heretics in the eyes of the RCC and possibly destined for a fate apart from God, etc. But that view seems to go directly against the version of God that Jesus exemplified.

Click to expand...

It would depend on if she asked God for forgiveness and was sincere. The goal of excommunication is to get the individual back on the right track by making them think about their actions. If they repent then they can be accepted back. This is how Jesus told us to deal with problems in the Church. Jesus said if they refuse to change then you treat them like you would treat a Pagan or Tax collector.

football5680 said:

esus said if they refuse to change then you treat them like you would treat a Pagan or Tax collector.

Click to expand...

You mean to have communion with them?

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

You mean to have communion with them?

Click to expand...

Jesus is using those two classes of people to make a point and it doesn't necessarily apply to every individual who happens to be a Pagan or Tax collector. In other words, if they refuse to listen to the Church then they are no longer your Brother or Sister in Christ. You no longer have any obligations towards them and you should disassociate from them because they are toxic to the rest of the Christian community.

football5680 said:

Jesus is using those two classes of people to make a point and it doesn't necessarily apply to every individual who happens to be a Pagan or Tax collector. In other words, if they refuse to listen to the Church then they are no longer your Brother or Sister in Christ. You no longer have any obligations towards them and you should disassociate from them because they are toxic to the rest of the Christian community.

Click to expand...

I know what you meant, it sounds really very horrible when it's said out loud... Although I'm sure you mean it in love.

Actually, if you read up on the history of women and pro-choice issues (i.e. abortion, contraception, etc) there's something called "ensoulment" in Catholicism, which a lot of famed scholars throughout history believed that the fetus/child gestating in the womb was not fully developed until the later stages of pregnancy or at birth. It has largely been only since the 1930s or the 1970s with the invention of the pill and the push by organizations to legalize abortion that the issue itself became politicized and polarized as it is today. (For example, stillborns were generally not baptized throughout history in the Catholic Church.)

For pro-choice Christians, I'd recommend reading "Good Catholics" by Patricia Miller or read this article by Catholic theologian Daniel C. Maguire at: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm

For those who do not support abortion, I would just calmly suggest not to read the said article/book mentioned in this post or skip reading my post altogether. Everyone have their own established views on things.

PS: To play devil's advocate: there are Catholics out there that don't support abortion but support the death penalty, which is also not what the head of the Catholic Church supports. Are the pro-death penalty Catholics any less Catholic than pro-choice Catholics?

Aldebaran said:

Jeremiah 1:5 speaks to the idea that life does begin at conception:
“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”

Click to expand...

I don't think it says anything about conception. I also don't think it's literally true, it's poetic language, certainly.

Aldebaran said:

So then, as a Catholic, how do you decide what parts of God's word really means what is written and what is simply poetic? God is the one speaking when He says "I knew you".

Click to expand...

We all use some manner of hermeneutics in order to interpret scripture. I personally like the canonical critical methods developed by Edgar Conrad especially that with regards to his incorporation of Philip Davies's history of religion. Also, I very much enjoy reading Lester Grabbe on the prophets and on Judaism in the Persio-Hellenistic era. And I've been reading quite a bit of Halvor Moxnes on the NT as well as Daniel Boyarin's readings of parts of the NT. Boyarin is a Talmudic scholar and his reading of Paul and John in a Jewish lens is quite refreshing.

How do you decide what parts of the bible are poetic? Or do you think that the bible contains no literary craft at all and that every single part of the bible is of precisely the same genre as every other part? What genre do you consider that to be?

I agree that Catholics have to oppose abortion & that a Catholic who is involved with abortion (having one, doing one or helping someone have one) has placed themselves in a grave situation and needs to present for Confession. There is no wiggle room on this issue.

These things being said, I think there can be wiggle room in terms of how a Catholic thinks we can resolve the situation. A more conservative Catholic may identify as Republican and simply seek to ban abortion through legal means - a more liberal Catholic may identify as Democratic and seek to address the underlying problems involved in poverty and welfare. How society fixes the problem of abortion is a healthy debate and can occur within the Catholic Church so long as everyone involved approaches with the shared conviction that killing babies is not the answer. Likewise, a conservative Catholic would be wrong to support the idea of using violence against a Planned Parenthood. Shooting sinners isn't the answer, either.

smoothrose said:

PS: To play devil's advocate: there are Catholics out there that don't support abortion but support the death penalty, which is also not what the head of the Catholic Church supports. Are the pro-death penalty Catholics any less Catholic than pro-choice Catholics?

Click to expand...

I had not visited this thread recently and just saw this "footnote" to an earlier post. It is an excellent point that should not be ignored. Being for the termination of human life, whether by abortion or execution, is against the teaching of the Catholic Church and certainly opposed by the teaching of Jesus.

With that in mind, the main issue of abortion, to me, is mostly about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn child. Both have rights, yet one is totally dependent on the other. And there are circumstances that can create conflict between the "right to life" of one vs. the other. This is a grey area that will likely never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. And we know that legally banning abortion does not stop it from occurring.

On a related side note, people should realize that Jesus did not advocate changing civil laws to support his moral teachings. Rather, he appealed to the conscience of individuals to get them to change and act rightly in their own lives.

Aldebaran said:

I enjoy reading God's word and taking it for what He is saying to us. The more human interpreters we allow to filter the word before it reaches our ears, the less pure it becomes.

Click to expand...

The Christian God was apt enough to incarnate into humanity, this is known as kenosis. Essentially Christ took on human flesh, took on human suffering and even suffering onto a cross. It seems evident enough that while you don't like humans God does, God loves being a part of humanity, being interpreted. I would say that the more humans had touched the text the better it is, and the text has been touched considerably.

Aldebaran said:

I think it's rather obvious when it's poetic and when it's not.

Click to expand...

I don't. Certainly not from our vantage point. When the authors wrote then it may have been obvious but today, and given the conservative nature of biblical translations, it may be rather difficult to say from the text itself what is historical and what is not. If you think that Genesis has anything other than myth then it's obvious just how bad this can be.

This is why I value the scholarship of biblical criticism.

Aldebaran said:

I think the terminology needs to be looked at. Pro-choice vs. pro-life. We should instead say that we're either for or against abortion, since that's what is being discussed. Otherwise, people will take the pro-life label and apply it to something other than what is being discussed, which is the abortion issue, and then the discussion is side tracked to things like war, self defense, economic issues, etc.

Click to expand...

Not really sure a Catholic needs to make a distinction. It's not just abortion. If you're a Catholic following the Catholic rules to the letter my understanding is that you're supposed to be pro-life in all circumstances. You're not supposed to support abortion in any circumstance (no exceptions for rape, incest, etc...), you're not supposed to support any kind of contraception outside family planning (I believe they would term it being open to life), you're supposed to be pro-life regarding end of life circumstances (no Dr. assisted suicide or suicide in general), and you're supposed to be pro-life regarding capital punishment and oppose capital punishment as well.

If you support any of those (abortion, contraception, Dr. assisted suicide, capital punishment), you're belief is in opposition to Catholic teaching and is as I understand it considered mortally sinful by the church. If you want to consider that being a bad Catholic, an excommunicated Catholic (per the Canon 1398), or really a non-Catholic is up to you, but clearly anyone who claims to be a good Catholic, or potentially a Catholic at all, and holds one or more of those beliefs is trying to fool themselves. At best they're bad Catholics, at worst their Catholic in name only, Cafeteria Catholics, or "cultural" Catholics per RCC teaching.

I always found Jeremiah 1:5 puzzling to support being against abortion as the verse speaks to God knowing a specific person/prophet named Jeremiah as in the womb onward, not every single member of humanity throughout history.