Pro-Choice Christians

[Ben]

I agree gregory...if a woman has the right to murder her child, she should have the right to murder herself, since it is her body.  

[Jennifer]

I will believe what people say about there faith, more than your own opinions and interpretations of their faith and actions.

Many Pro-Choice Catholics believe the Catholic Church is infallible and the true Church, however they don't believe the Church's teaching on abortion is an infallible one. Their main argument is that over the centuries that Church has not been 100% against abortion and that it wasn't until recently that the Church has taken a stance against all forms of abortion, and there is some truth to that, historicaly speaking. So really pro-choice Catholics, well at least the many that I know, don't deny that the Church is infallible, they just differ with the pro-life Catholics as to whether the Church's teaching on abortion is infallible and must be obeyed or not.  

If the Church is infallible about faith and morals then its teachings must be obeyed.  Therefore if someone believes that the Church doesn't have to be obeyed then they don't believe the Church is infallible regardless of their claims to believe in the infallibility of the Church.  Also if they believe the Church can make a mistake about an issue as important as abortion then they believe the Church is fallible because an infallible organization cannot make a mistake about an issue like abortion.  

For example, if someone believes a clock is working properly they 'believe' the clock when it states the time.  People claim to trust things when they don't really trust them.  

I don't think the majority of Catholics deny or reject that the Catholic Church is the true infallible Church, I think that where the Church is infallible, and where it isn't, is where Catholics, esp American Catholics, differ. I have never met a Pro-Choice Catholic who rejects the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, they agree that the Church is infallible in doctrinal matters, just not when "they tell a woman what to do with their body."  

But telling a woman what to do with her body is a doctrinal matter.  What a pro-choice Catholic does is limit the Church's authority and an infallible organization ordained by God himself to 'bind and loose' can't be limited.  It doesn't matter if they accept the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption they still do not accept the infallibility of the Church.  

It doesn't matter what they say. What matters is what they do and no one who believes the Church is infallible believes that it's possible for the Church to be wrong about abortion.  Now they may not have thought this through completely and may think they are 'obedient' Catholics but deep down in their hearts they don't believe in the infallibility of the Church because if they did believe in the infallibility of the Church they would be pro-life.  

Becuase they believe, with some historical proof, that the Church has not always condemned abortion, and always hasn't taken a totally pro-life stance.  

I agree with you, but you can take that a little too far. Bishops can make mistakes, they can even be heretics, and even the vast majority of the magisterium can teach heresy, there a several examples of this in Church History. The Church's offical dogmas and doctrines can't be wrong, if the Church is infallible, but the magisterium, or most of it, can teach heresy..  

No, the magisterium cannot teach heresy.  The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church.  Individual bishops or even groups of bishops can teach heresy but the magisterium cannot teach heresy.  

Right, when it comes to a woman's body. But they do believe the Church has the aurthority to tell them what or how to believe when it comes to doctrinal and dogmatic issues.

No they don't.  Abortion is a doctrinal issue.  

Jennifer, I am very close to women who have had abortions, and most of them believe they did absolutely nothing wrong. They had abortions with in the first few weeks of their pregnancy, and truly believe they just had a blob of tissue removed, they in no way think it was a human being, or that murder occured, and these are people I am very close with. They see nothing wrong with what they did.I am sorry, but not in my expirence..  

Thinking that you did something is not the same as knowing you did something wrong.  People, through sin, can harden their hearts and no longer be able to discern the state of their soul.  People often ignore truths they don't like.  But natural law is written on everyone's heart.  As the catechism says "no one is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man."  

So then following that logic, I assume he refuses to hear confessions? Catholics can confess whatever they want in confession, but must only confess Mortal sins, if only priests can committ mortal sins, then only priests should go to confession.

Now that's just silly.  I think you think that venial sins are not serious sins.  Unrepented venial sins predispose us to mortal sin.  Venial sin weakens charity.  

And as I said in one of my earlier posts, priests are not infallible, they each have their own expirence. And as I also said, my priest, who has been a priest for 32 years, totally disagrees, and does believe we can committ mortal sins, and that we do!  

We all believe that people 'can' commit mortal sins but mortal sin requires such a complete knowledge of the gravity of the act that this priest (and many others, btw) doubt that the average person is capable of commiting a mortal sin.  I would venture to guess that this priest of yours would probably have a hard time saying with absolute certainty that the majority of the people who have confessed to him have committed mortal sins.  They may committed things on the official list of mortal sins but as we saw in the link from the Summa, mortal sins can become venial and venial sins can become mortal based on knowledge.  

Who in the world would do something just to hurt God? Just out of a deep hate for God?

Someone who is evil.  

If you committ a serious sin, and you know that it is a very serious sin, but you do it anyway, you have committed a moratl sin. You must have full knowledge that it is a sin, but you just do it anyway. As I have said there are so many times in my life where I have committed very serious sins, knowing that they were very serious sins but doing it anyway, but not with the specific intention of hurting God, or to somehow show that I hate him.

What do you mean by "do it anyway?"  That had absolute faith that immediately after stealing that candy bar that you would die and go to hell and you didn't care?  Or that you figured you'd have a chance to work everything out with God because you'd go to confession the next saturday?  Or that you didn't really believe that God would send you to hell for stealing a candy bar?  

Committing a mortal sin hurts God because it is a deliberate personal choice to disobey God's law.  It's a rejection of God which hurts God.  When you reject your mother, don't you know that it hurts her?  Isn't there a part of you that wants to hurt her?  Committing a mortal sin is a deliberal personal choice for hell over heaven.  When you stole that candy bar did you choose hell?  

But see that person couldn't stop. Now if that person intentially ran into another car, just to hurt the other person, knowing that it was very wrong to do so, has committed a mortal sin, even if they didn't do it to hurt God, or show their hate for him.

How could someone intentionally hurt another person and not intend to also hurt God?  It isn't possible to commit a mortal sin without also intending to hurt God.  It could also very well not be possible to commit a mortal sin without also intending to hurt God.  It hurts God when we turn away from him and venial sin is the deliberate turning away from God.  

[Ben]

If the Church is infallible about faith and morals then its teachings must be obeyed.

 

I totally agree.

Therefore if someone believes that the Church doesn't have to be obeyed then they don't believe the Church is infallible regardless of their claims to believe in the infallibility of the Church.

I don't know about that. Remeber niether me or your can speak for all pro-choice Catholics. But from personal expirence, pro-choice Catholics do believe that the Church is infallible, just not on abortion.

Also if they believe the Church can make a mistake about an issue as important as abortion then they believe the Church is fallible because an infallible organization cannot make a mistake about an issue like abortion.  

But the Church hasn't always condemned all forms of abortion, and hasn't always taught life starts at the moment of conception. So the pro-choice Catholic would ask, which one is wrong? How can the "infallible" teachings of the Church hundreds of years ago contradict the "infallible" teachings of the Church today?

 

What a pro-choice Catholic does is limit the Church's authority and an infallible organization ordained by God himself to 'bind and loose' can't be limited.

 

I totally agree.

It doesn't matter what they say. What matters is what they do and no one who believes the Church is infallible believes that it's possible for the Church to be wrong about abortion.

 

But the Catholic teaching on abortion has not always been the same, and pro-choice Catholics use that to show, the Church's position on abortion can be wrong.

No, the magisterium cannot teach heresy.  The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church.  Individual bishops or even groups of bishops can teach heresy but the magisterium cannot teach heresy.

 

It is true that the entire magisterium can not teach or embrace heresy, but the vast majority can, as it has in the past, and as I traditional Catholic I would even argue that is the case today!

Now that's just silly.  I think you think that venial sins are not serious sins.  Unrepented venial sins predispose us to mortal sin.  Venial sin weakens charity.

 

We are only required to confess mortal sins in confession, we can confess venial sins if we wish, and are encouraged to do so, but it is not neccesary. Therefore, if only priests can committ a mortal sin, then there is no need to have confession for laymen.

We all believe that people 'can' commit mortal sins but mortal sin requires such a complete knowledge of the gravity of the act that this priest (and many others, btw) doubt that the average person is capable of commiting a mortal sin.

To committ a mortal sin, we just must realize and totally understand that it is a very serious sin, that it is very very bad, but we do it anyway. You don't have to hate God to committ a mortal sin! Or wish to hurt him! You just must know what you are doing is very very bad, that it is contrary to the laws of God and his Church and is forbidden, but you do it anyway.

They may committed things on the official list of mortal sins but as we saw in the link from the Summa, mortal sins can become venial and venial sins can become mortal based on knowledge.

 

Exactly. It is based on knowledge, if you know it is a mortal sin and do it anyway, you have commited a mortal sin! But if you have no idea that it is a mortal sin, then you clearly didn't committ a mortal sin. You must have the knowledge that what you are doing is a grave sin, but you do it anyway, to committ a mortal sin.

What do you mean by "do it anyway?"  

Ummm lol how is not clear? Let me go back to me stealing a candy bar when I was younger...

I knew stealing was wrong and a very very serious sin, but I DID IT ANYWAY. That means that before, during, and after I stole it, I knew that what I was doing was wrong, and a serious sin.

I know so many people who committ very serious sins, and have full knowledge that they are serious sins, but they committ the sin anyway. Meaning, that they knew it was wrong, but that didn't stop them from doing it.

That had absolute faith that immediately after stealing that candy bar that you would die and go to hell and you didn't care?  Or that you figured you'd have a chance to work everything out with God because you'd go to confession the next saturday?  Or that you didn't really believe that God would send you to hell for stealing a candy bar?

 

The Catholic Church teaches that those who die in the state of mortal sin, go to Hell. And remember we must obey the teachings of the Church, if we believe that the Church is who it claimes to be.

So, if me stealing that candy bar was a mortal sin, then yes I would have gone to Hell if I died right after stealing it. And since I had full knowledge that it was wrong and a serious sin but did it anyway, it was a mortal sin.

Committing a mortal sin hurts God because it is a deliberate personal choice to disobey God's law

.

Exactly, but that in no way means that hurting or hating God must be our intention for us to committ a mortal sin. When you know something is a serious sin and you do it anyway, you have made a personal choice to disobey God's law, because you understand that what you are doing contradicts the law of God!

[Jennifer]

 

I totally agree.

I don't know about that. Remeber niether me or your can speak for all pro-choice Catholics. But from personal expirence, pro-choice Catholics do believe that the Church is infallible, just not on abortion.

"Just not on abortion?"  That doesn't make sense.  If they believed it was infallible they would believe it was infallible about everything.  If they say they believe the Church is infallible in situation X but not situation Y then they are limiting the power of the Church indicating a belief that the Church isn't infallible.  

There is no logical way that the Church can be infallible but not infallible when dealing with abortion.  That's fundamentally illogical.  I'd ask these acquaitances of yours how an infallible organization is only infallible in some situations.  It's not logical.  If you press them, what you'll discover is that they don't believe the Church is truly infallible.  

For the record, I've never met a pro-choice Catholic who agreed wholeheartedly with every single other Church teaching.  There may be one or two out there but these people reject the teaching authority of the Church regardless of what they claim.  If they accepted the Church's authority then they would be pro-life.  You're letting them use sophistry to justify their position.  It's really as simple as this, pro-choice Catholics reject the teaching authority of the Church.  The teaching authority can't be limited.  It's all or nothing.  Someone that believes the Church has authority in only a limited number of subjects ultimately doesn't believe the Church is infallible because an infallible organization by definition has authority over everything.  This is why pro-choice Catholics disagree with the Church about other teachings.  

These pro-choice acquaintances of yours...do they believe the Church has the right to tell people not to use artificial contraception?  I'd guess no...and why not...because they reject the teaching authority of the Church.  Remember that someone can accept some of the Church's teachings and still reject the teaching authority of the Church.  For example, most orthodox protestants accept the Church's christology.  

But the Church hasn't always condemned all forms of abortion, and hasn't always taught life starts at the moment of conception. So the pro-choice Catholic would ask, which one is wrong? How can the "infallible" teachings of the Church hundreds of years ago contradict the "infallible" teachings of the Church today?

Dogma doesn't change.  If the Church hasn't always condemned abortion then they're right that they don't have to accept it.  You and I don't have to accept it either.  I think it was St. Vincent who said that dogma was what the Church had taught always and everywhere, or something like that.  My understanding is that the Church used to believe that life began at quickening and therefore 'abortion' (not really the proper term) was allowed before quickening.  However, this doesn't mean that the Church didn't condemn abortion.  What's changed is that because of scientific discoveries the Church now understands that life begins at conception.  It's not that abortion was once okay and now it's condemned but rather that people in the past didn't understand what occurred at conception.  Before modern medicine, a woman didn't even know she was pregnant until the first month.  

So if someone believes that the Church has changed its position on abortion, it might be possible for them to disagree with the Church and still believe in the Church.  However, these people are misinformed about history and I would argue deliberately misinformed about history.  

But the Catholic teaching on abortion has not always been the same, and pro-choice Catholics use that to show, the Church's position on abortion can be wrong.  

It has always been the same.  http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

It is true that the entire magisterium can not teach or embrace heresy, but the vast majority can, as it has in the past, and as I traditional Catholic I would even argue that is the case today!  

But here's the rub, if a group of bishops are teaching heresy, they aren't the magisterium, therefore a majority of the magisterium can't heresy.  By definition the magisterium can't teach heresy.  

We are only required to confess mortal sins in confession, we can confess venial sins if we wish, and are encouraged to do so, but it is not neccesary. Therefore, if only priests can committ a mortal sin, then there is no need to have confession for laymen.

No you still misunderstand.  There is always a 'need' for confession even if there is no mortal sin.  We need sanctifying grace.  We need to repent of our venial sins.  

To committ a mortal sin, we just must realize and totally understand that it is a very serious sin, that it is very very bad, but we do it anyway. You don't have to hate God to committ a mortal sin! Or wish to hurt him! You just must know what you are doing is very very bad, that it is contrary to the laws of God and his Church and is forbidden, but you do it anyway.  

But why do we do it anyway?  That's the crux of the issue.  If we do it because we think we'll get away with it or because it's easier that's fundamentally different than doing it because we want to do something's that's against God.  

I knew stealing was wrong and a very very serious sin, but I DID IT ANYWAY. That means that before, during, and after I stole it, I knew that what I was doing was wrong, and a serious sin.

First, let's be clear that stealing a candy bar is not a mortal sin.  In order for theft to be a mortal sin the amount stolen has to be more than an average person's wages.  

Second, let me examine your state of mind.  You looked at the candy bar and wanted it.  You thought to yourself, I know stealing is a sin and I make the deliberate personal choice to choose hell over heaven.  If you really thought that way then perhaps you did commit a mortal sin, although, I have very strong doubts if the acceptance of eternal damnation was part of your thought process.  

I know so many people who committ very serious sins, and have full knowledge that they are serious sins, but they committ the sin anyway. Meaning, that they knew it was wrong, but that didn't stop them from doing it.  

But why do they commit it anyway?  When you've sinned in the past did you make a personal deliberate choice for hell?  That's what mortal sin requires, a deliberate personal choice to separate oneself from God.  

The Catholic Church teaches that those who die in the state of mortal sin, go to Hell. And remember we must obey the teachings of the Church, if we believe that the Church is who it claimes to be.

You've asked who could want to hurt God so I'll ask who, believing totally in the Church, would disobey the Church?  Press your pro-choice Catholic acquaintances of this issue and I guarantee you that you will discover they don't accept the Church is what it claims to be.  

So, if me stealing that candy bar was a mortal sin, then yes I would have gone to Hell if I died right after stealing it. And since I had full knowledge that it was wrong and a serious sin but did it anyway, it was a mortal sin..

But did you choose hell at that moment?  Remember that mortal sin requires a deliberate personal choice and full acceptance of the consequences of the sin.  

[SamB]

I don't know about that. Remeber niether me or your can speak for all pro-choice Catholics. But from personal expirence, pro-choice Catholics do believe that the Church is infallible, just not on abortion.

But the Church hasn't always condemned all forms of abortion, and hasn't always taught life starts at the moment of conception. So the pro-choice Catholic would ask, which one is wrong? How can the "infallible" teachings of the Church hundreds of years ago contradict the "infallible" teachings of the Church today?

It is true that certain mediaeval theologians speculated on the exact moment a human being within the womb would acquire a human soul, with some postulating that it would take place after conception, the body being first infused with a vegetative soul that would gradually develop in stages.  Regardless of the Church's historical inexactitude in the matter, the risk of an abortion performed at any stage of pregnancy terminating the existence of an immortal human soul is what automatically renders the act morally unlicensable, even when certainty of what* exactly lies in the womb is wanting.

*not within a biological context (the ambiguity lies only within the spiritual sphere), for certainty exists in that area given that a complete set of D.N.A. remains unaltered as the baby develops, as opposed to transforms.

In IC XC
Samer

[Ben]

Jennifer, I would love to continue this over email or private messaging, but I don't think our current discussion on mortal sin and the Catholic teaching on itself and abortion has anything to do with Orthodoxy, whatsoever. I would love to continue this, perhaps in private though.   Just a thought......

[Bono Vox]

I don't understand how any Orthodox Christian can be Pro-Abortion because it is the slaughter of innocent life.

I read the recent edition of AGAIN! Magazine, and it dealt with the issue of Orthodox leaders putting Orthodoxy aside, and voting in a secularist manner. There were two "Orthodox" senators who voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, according to the article, and they keep on voting to advance the abortion cause. According to the magazine, it is impossible to truly separate Orthodoxy from your civic life when you are in a position of power.

I would encourage any of you to read the current edition of AGAIN! magazine. If any of you have read it , let me know what you think.

Bagpiper

[gphadraig]

The following of the God-man, Jesus Christ, and supporting abortion are simply imcompatible. One is a denial of the other.

Sadly, today there are those who wish to re-arrange every value, teaching or doctrine that does not suit, is inconvenient or presents with difficulty. Life is not about salvation but about something called the pursuit of happiness!

Abortion was well known to ancient times. In Greece right up to the present day Orthodox bishops and priests have to preach against those who practice such an abomination.

Some protest but how might we otherwise control our fertility? Possibly by a little sexual continence I am tempted to snap back, but realise it is a little more complex. However, Christ never promised us an easy and convenient pathway to the one thing needful, salvation!

[scott9710]

Joe Zollars

don't listen to what RHO says she hangs out on other boards she has a way of changing what you said.
it was wierd I came to this Forum and spot her intials RHO
and from her comments here I am sure she is the same person that has made alot of remarks at the site below.

http://www.pregnancy.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=163770&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20&sid=9a7463c7d5d80b9bd9527469b1f4fdc9

[scott9710]

At the moment of conception it is a human being just look at the court cases, that there is a double standard that a women can choose to terminate her pregnancy because it is her body Roe vs. Wade 1972 and it is considered an fetus not a baby so therefore it is not murder but at the same time if someone terminates the pregnancy without the women’s consent example in an accident an unborn child dies it is considered manslaughter or if she is murdered and the unborn child dies then it is a double homicide or someone that punches her in the abdomen and cause the death of the unborn child then it is considered Manslaughter of the unborn child. So ladies which is it murder of choice!

I have another recent article here is the link http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2431343 this guy was charged with a double homicide.

We went from one extreme before 1972 to another extreme after Roe vs. Wade and still no middle ground on when an abortion should be medically necessary which should be the point, but in the very near future I predict we will go to another extreme a total ban on abortion again when enough people are in prison for murder or manslaughter of an unborn child then the government and pro life will have the opportunity to state the facts that people are in prison for murder and therefore the courts have considered that an unborn child is not a fetus but indeed a human being with all the civil rights as you or me have, and when that is proven which it will be then more than likely Doctors will be charged with murder and the women that receive the abortion will be charged with accessory to murder, I think it is a good time for pro choice and pro life to get together and find a middle ground for when it is medically necessary far ANY ABORTION before it is to late and we go back to another extreme again.

All I ask is to read up on these cases and you will see where this is going use your common sense.

Sincerely
Scott

P.S I ‘m pro life and believe that there is a middle ground but if we can’t find one then I will go with the extreme no abortion at all because I have no other choices given to me to stop senseless killing of human beings.

[scott9710]

this rational post I made in pregnancy.org upset her enough to get a moderator involved the same type post I made above.

take care everyone

http://www.pregnancy.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=163770&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20&sid=9a7463c7d5d80b9bd9527469b1f4fdc9

[Fr. David]

don't listen to what RHO says she hangs out on other boards she has a way of changing what you said.
it was wierd I came to this Forum and spot her intials RHO
and from her comments here I am sure she is the same person that has made alot of remarks at the site below.

WOAH!  WOOOOAH!  No, the Rho who posts here is a completely different person than the Rho at that pregnancy site, methinks!  For one, the Rho who posts here is a guy, and secondly, he is EXTREMELY pro-life.  I've known the man personally for years.

(I can't believe there are two people out there with the same online ID, though...! )

[gphadraig]

I know a young woman. One day she looked up and apropo of nothing announced it was the anniversary of her conception. There was a silence. And I reflected on our feasts of these names. Others were embarassed or on the point of sniggering. For me she brought the reality and the significance of these feasts right into our times.

The young woman? A Greek. Oh, simple peasant girl from the country was she? No, pious and the daughter of a leading Athens lawyer, undertaking her PhD in Medical Physics at world leading hospital.

The anti-Christians of today talk of the fetus and differentiate between it and a baby or child. This is not a Christian viewpoint at all. They talk to of the rights of a mother over her body. Again an anti-Christian perspective. The pro-abortion lobby use emotive arguments and heart-rending examples of the 'need' for this abominable act but the everyday story and use of this is something very different.

This is not about differences between two points of view, hotly contended but between right and wrong. It is not about gender politics, but about what is lawful and unlawful in the eyes of Him who created all.

My parents raised three boys. We all got taught that we had a great responsibility to girls that we went out with. That it took two to make someone pregnant. All too often some men walk away and take no responsibility for a life. Now it appears too many women also want to take no responsibility for a life. Even better let us create a fiction that it isn't a life but a thing, until we decide to throw the 'on' or the 'off' switch.

I have never met someone before who knew and celebrated the day of their conception, without anything save a joy in the Merciful God who made such life possible. But I shall remember the occasion always............

[Strelets]

I'm afraid to even ask how she knew the precise date of her conception.

[Arystarcus]

LOL, indeed.

[Rho]

If I may...

I read the pages of that debate on pregnancy.org...
Rho does kind of remind me of me in that s/he uses language kind of like I do, debates kind of like I do, etc.  I don't misspell words like s/he does though (even though his/her spelling is superior to most posters on the Net by and large).
However, the argumentation is lousy and I am against abortion in 99.99% of all cases.  
Distressing and annoying that someone would be so rude as to swipe my nick in some other forum.  :-D
Remember, though, scott9710, just b/c someone is a Prottie doesn't mean they're pro-death-for-babies.

[gphadraig]

The pious young Greek woman knew because her parents told her. I guess the time, date and place were something special, something treasured, remembered and that memory shared with their daughter at a later time when she could understand.

In the time I knew her I never heard anything that smacked of smut or side. The simplest answers are sometimes just that.

[gonefishing]

Call me stupid but I can't find attachments in the original post.  Were they removed or do I just not know all the functions in this forum?

[Michał Kalina]

This topic is 8 year old. They propably do not longer exist.

[gonefishing]

This topic is 8 year old. They propably do not longer exist.

Ack.  lol. 

[Nicene]

Its quite easy, all you have to do is ignore well established and respected tradition. In otherwords be a protestant.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Pro-Choice Christians