Does partisanship come in the way of principles?

Parent Cafe
101

<p>ldmom, the question of whether or not pro-abortion politicians should receive Communion is a difficult one for the Church. An article in Time magazine addressed this question recently.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Pope</a> Rejects Pro-Choice Politicians - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1619070,00.html]Pope”>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1619070,00.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Catholic</a> “Pro-Choice” Politicians](<a href=“Abortion - Pro Life - Priests for Life Library of Documents and Articles”>Abortion - Pro Life - Priests for Life Library of Documents and Articles)</p>

<p>Personally, I find this to be a difficult issue. While I think Giuliani would be strong on national security, which is my hot button issue, I have trouble with his pro-choice position.</p>

102

<p>What “other place” are you guys talking about?</p>

103

<p>Thanks for the links sjmom. </p>

<p>As an extension of what your are saying about your difficulty, this is where I run into my difficulty. The Church will hold a doctor, nurse or patient accountable for participation in an act which is legal in this country; but will not hold the legislator accountable for making that act legal? Or a voter for putting that legislator into office? It just leaves me shaking my head.</p>

104

<p>I think that the Church is being very careful about holding politicians accountable i.e. excommunication. As one of the links above states, the current position seems to leave it up to their individual conscience. The position of the Church is really clear though – there is no way to be pro-choice and Catholic.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the reason I continue to address the abortion issue when it comes up on CC is that I feel obligated to do so by my faith. I can’t take a “live and let live” position when one party doesn’t get to live.</p>

105

<p>So this thread is going to morph into one of those religion/politics threads? Maybe it would be better to start a new thread to address this topic.</p>

106

<p>I know that abortion is a bit off-topic, but I have similar problems with politicians who try to have it both ways. I think Mario Cuomo popularized the notion that he was personally against abortion but defended the right for others to “choose”. Why would someone be against abortion if he didn’t think that it was taking a life? If one has the view that it is the taking of an innocent life, how could one possibly honor someone elses “right” to extinguish that life. I’m actually more comfortable with people who are consistent - they don’t view a fetus as a life and hence have no problem with extracting it any more so than they would a tumor.</p>

107

<p>There’s a difference between “life” and “potential human” and “human.”</p>

<p>As a thought experiment: you can save either one five-year-old or 30 petri dishes containing a fertilized ova…which do you save? And why?</p>

<p>SJM: and I won’t take a live and let live approach to those who want to impose their sectarian views, regardless of sect, upon the country as a whole.
And, fwiw, the Pope is free to have his opinion and I’m free to have mine…given the number of American Catholics that practice artificial birth control, I’d guess that I’m not particularly unique. Moreover, I’ve discussed my pro-Choice views with my pastors and both sides have been satisfied with the outcome. The canonical response is: What is it to you? </p>

<p>Furthermore, even statements from the Conference of Bishops are no more binding than TIME magazine articles. I reject the term “cafeteria Catholic” and if you persist in picking at my religious beliefs then I will start to give explanations in terms that will probably leave you even more offended than do my political posts. But if you want a theological war, it can begin here. Personally, I don’t think it’s the appropriate place but neither will I back down or yield to your framing. </p>

<p>ZM: nah. I just wanted you to realize some of the logical consequences of where your hugs and kisses might lead, thinking it might bring you up a bit short. After all, 'tis the season for weighing of naughty and nice and contemplating the naughty can be kinda fun, particularly when one didn’t mean to.</p>

108

<p>Still talking religion, abortion and politics. Oh well. Good example that we dont always get what we ask for.</p>

109

<p>“ZM: nah. I just wanted you to realize some of the logical consequences of where your hugs and kisses might lead, thinking it might bring you up a bit short. After all, 'tis the season for weighing of naughty and nice and contemplating the naughty can be kinda fun, particularly when one didn’t mean to.”</p>

<p>Yeah, well, at my age, I guess I shouldn’t ever assume that a man would intentionally talk dirty to me.</p>

110

<p>thedad, it’s nothing to me. But if you suggest that your views are in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church, I’ll correct you.</p>

<p>As for those you have “cleared” your view with, their views (if they are as you suggest) are not those of the Vatican. As for your views about the Pope, Catholics accept the doctrine of Papal authority. Those who don’t accept that doctrine are commonly called Protestant. (I’m not saying anything negative about Protestants, just that they don’t believe in the doctrine of Papal authority or Papal Infallibility.)</p>

<p>[Papal</a> Infallibility](<a href=“http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp]Papal”>http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)</p>

<p>I have now provided many links explaining the position of the Catholic Church on abortion. You have offered your opinion. Fine. But you have yet to offer any link saying that it’s ok for Catholics to be pro-choice.</p>

111

<p>

Yes, and I would save a 5-year old child before a cancer-ridden old man, but that doesn’t say that I would grant someone the right to believe that the elderly man has served his purpose on earth and kill him. All three (child, fetus, and elderly man) are lives and the fact that someone else does not share that belief does not give me the obligation to grant that person the freedom to extinguish any of those lives.</p>

112

<p>sjmom - I think every time a Catholic votes for a Ted Kennedy, they are essentially saying they think it is okay for Catholics to be pro-choice. I just get stumped at where the accountability line is drawn.</p>

113

<p>FF, it seems as if you evade the point: the 30 fertilized ova are not the moral equivalent of the five-year-old child…contrary to the implications of the policies espoused by the would-be ayahtollahs.</p>

<p>SJM: Primus, the Pope is deemed infallible only when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals…not pronouncements to Mexican bishops quoted in TIME magazine. Secundus, the doctrine is hardly rooted in the history of the Church, having been adopted at the Vatican I Council in 1870. Tertius, the doctrine has been invoked exactly once…in 1950, regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. So, to do date, under even the strictest interpretation of doctrine, I’m free to learn, consider, and understand the Church’s teachings and then tell the Pope to go stick it if my conscience so inclines me. On matters relating to sex in general, with which the American would-be ayahtollahs and the modern-day Pharisees within the Church seem extraordinarily pre-occupied, I would tell His Holiness the punch line to the old joke: you no playa da game, you no make-a da rules. Pity that Benedict is German, so the accent doesn’t really resonate, but at least he doesn’t cause me the constant sense of scandal that JP2 did.</p>

<p>In a larger sense, the contemporary Pharisees are in error when they present the Church as both monolithic and unchanging. The Church of AD 2007 is not the Church of AD 33, 70, 180, 325, 400, 590, 800, 1054, 1215, 1232, 1415, 1517, 1545, 1600, 1633, or 1870 or 1955…the last which I see as a period that a lot of contemporary conservative American Catholics seem to assume was the time of “the way it ought to be.” The Church and its theology have evolved and changed and once steadfast positions are now confessed as errors, everything from the convictions of Galileo & Bruno to the concept of blood libel. </p>

<p>I was struck, when visiting Prague, that the heresies for which the Hussites were martyred included now-accepted practices such as the laity receiving Communion under both species and preaching the Gospel in the local vernacular language. An elderly Catholic once asked me, in a perplexed tone of voice, when the Church would stop changing? The short answer is that it won’t.</p>

<p>It’s barely possible that, as a convert, I have a better grasp of Church history and its implications than most cradle Catholics. Okay, so I cheated: I married into a very well-educated Catholic family and a lot rubbed off on me during my decades-long conversion process. Beyond that have had the good fortune to have some excellent and deeply informed catechists.</p>

114

<p>Will there be a required final exam at the end of this thread?</p>

115

<p>^^^ LOL Jym!</p>

116

<p>td, your faith is your business. Your attitude toward the Pope and the Church’s doctrine on abortion demonstrate to me that you do not have a clear understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Once again, I don’t care. And I think we should leave it at that.</p>

<p>Somehow, I suspect you’ll find a way to have the last word, and that also is fine with me. I’m finished debating this with you. Your complete lack of respect for Church teachings appalls me.</p>

<p>Jym, there will be a quiz, just for you! :slight_smile: But I’m an easy grader for those with a sense of humor.</p>

117

<p>Thanks, curiousmother!
sjmom-
If there is a quiz on this topic, I will need serious acccomodations!</p>

118

<p>

Odd that, for not caring, you have posted so much upon it. And you can’t say that I don’t have a clear understanding, you can only say that my understanding does not align with yours. Certainly, my understanding of papal infallibility, for instance, appears to be more rooted in fact. </p>

<p>

I have great respect for Church teachings else I’d not have converted. I assure you that it was a long and thoughtful process. Certainly some of my positions are currently heterodox but this was not seen as an impediment to my conversion, so again, What is it to you? I don’t exactly quiver silently in my pew waiting to be busted for my lack of complete orthodoxy. Pharisees who Miss The Point about what’s important and what’s not appall me…so we each have something to be appalled about. </p>

<p>Jym, if you want a quiz, you can start with the years I cited in my last long post: each year was chosen for a specific reason, except 1955, which is my own idiosyncratic touchstone relating to contemporary conservative American Catholics. Some of them are easy, some of them are a bit obscure. If you deal with those short answers, I’ll PM you the essay portion of the quiz.</p>

<p>Now that I think about it…nailing the significance of each of those years wouldn’t be a bad intro to the history of the Church.</p>

119

<p>OK, what in tarnation did I say that gave anyone the impression that I WANTED a quiz??? NO MAS!! UNCLE! Please!!! I don’t even know how to say Hail Marys, but if I did, would now be the time to start praying??? I PRAY that this thread gets back to the OP’s original, double entendred, thinly veiled, poorly disguised attempt to throw a few darts around at some of the bigger-than-life posters, and then deny that it was the intent of the thread.</p>

120

<p>TD - I am actually quite impressed with the care you have taken to learn about the Catholic faith. My husband is a Lutheran convert and he knows far more than I about church doctrine. I think there is something to be said for learning this stuff as an adult (and not a bored kid spitwadding the Pastor in Small Catechism class.) </p>

<p>I’m inspired to pull out my Abundant Life books and do a little personal refresher course. So you’ve done your good deed of the day my friend. :)</p>