[fuhrysteve]

Hey, i'm a believing Catholic, and i am actually a seminarian (as of august) studying to enter into the Priesthood (if that is my calling). I am interested to know what other Catholics, or at least those who understand and are not in harsh disagreement with the Catholic faith -- think about John Kerry being Pro-Death *cough* excuse me.. Pro-Choice, and claiming to be a "practicing Catholic."

[Todd D.]

I consider myself a fairly devout Catholic, and I personally am against Abortions. However, just because you don't toe the church line on every single issue doesn't necesarily disqualify you from being a "practicing Catholic", in my opinion. I was very disturbed when I heard that the American Bishops were going to start refusing Kerry the Eucharist because of his stance on Abortion. You as a seminarian should know more than most that really wasn't Jesus's message, at least not the way that I see it. I know that there are plenty of Catholics who are very devout but may a) Use contraception b) Be married to non-Catholics, or even non-Christians c) Miss Mass every once in a while, especially during the Holy Days of Obligation.

All of these things are technically grounds for exclusion from full Communion, yet they have chosen specifically a political issue. I'm not a big fan of that.

[Locke]

I cannot stand the Catholic Church anymore. For one thing, women cannot be priests. Why not? This is the 21st century, the Pope needs to get with it. I hate the sexism in the church. Are women somehow inferior in the eyes of the church? Well, they will never come out and say that but I do wonder...

[fuhrysteve]

...women cannot be priests. Why not? This is the 21st century, the Pope needs to get with it.

We don't believe it is up to the Church, it is biblical. this is not a question of the Church's position, as much as interpretation of scripture. and on the comment about it being the 21st century.. if it were sexism, would it be ok if it existed in the 19th century, or the 1st century even? certainly not. anywho, this is a post about beliefs on the topic of abortion in the Catholic Church, not on the theology and practices as witnessed outside the Catholic Church.

[Korimyr the Rat]

In any sensible person, there is a difference between one's religious and moral convictions and one's desired social policy.

I certainly wouldn't support a law requiring people to give a meal to anyone who showed up on their doorstep-- even though I make sure to offer whenever someone's going to be staying for a little while.

[fuhrysteve]

I consider myself a fairly devout Catholic, and I personally am against Abortions. However, just because you don't toe the church line on every single issue doesn't necesarily disqualify you from being a "practicing Catholic", in my opinion.

my question, then, is where do you draw the line between being 'with us' or 'against us?' Catholic means Universal, and the beauty of Catholicism is that we all believe the same thing, and things we are skeptical about, we are called to believe then out of obedience to those who have more authority to make a moral decision. For instance: Josephine Smith, when making a decision whether or not to have an abortion, may have a friend pray for her in her decision whether or not to have an abortion. The Pope and other Church leaders, when discerning the morality of a certain issue, has 1.07 Billion Catholics around the world praying for them (every time you go to Mass you pray for them, it's in the Eucharistic Prayer - and you confirm that prayer verbally at the great Amen (after the "through Him with Him in Him.." part)).

Scripture tells us that Christ's bride is the Church - and that the Church has authority on earth. I have a friend named Ron, who was trying to have a baby with his wife, and had some very wise words on this. He said that when God judges us, perhaps he will say something like "you know Ron, I really wasn't so worried about my people using In Vitro fertilization or some other attempt to have a baby. But My bride, the Church, taught that it was wrong, and you were obedient to My bride's teachings."
wouldn't that be a nice thing to hear on judgement day? it seemed like a rational thinking to me. leme know what you think -- God Bless!

In Him
Steve

[Todd D.]

I agree with most everything you said, and I understand, and for the most part, agree with your analogy on Christ's bride.

However, what I take issue with is the specific limitation and the singling out of the pro-choice crowd. I feel that there are a lot of Catholics who practice methods outside the teachings of the Church, be they masturbation, contraception, or any other sin that you can think of, who are now looking down on people who are pro-choice. I don't feel that was Christ's message, and I think that the Church is allowing people to allow this misconception. I know that officially any mortal sin disqualifies you from the Eucharist without receiving proper confession. I think that a more proper course of action would be for the clergy to remind people of that, rather than singling out the Pro-Choice crowd.

[fuhrysteve]

I agree with most everything you said, and I understand, and for the most part, agree with your analogy on Christ's bride.

sweet, i liked that one

[Daylight Express]

As far as I understand, John Kerry supports providing funding to abortion clinics and the like. That crosses the border of pro-choice. The Church is taking exception to him actively promoting abortion. There are countries where politicians have decriminalized abortion, and the Church has not been offended by that. It is Mr Kerry's rather active stance which is causing so much of a fuss.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Are you sure that Kerry supports providing funding to abortion clinics? After all, might it not be that he just doesn't support denying funding to abortion clinics?

There is a difference.

[Daylight Express]

Yes, there is a difference, that being actively removing a support which currently exists, or passively allowing the support to continue. I don't know the answer, though. Maybe someone will come along and enlighten us. :-)

[Fernando]

I think there is a (little) difference. I think there is a "mandatory force from facts" (I am translating from Spanish "fuerza normativa de los hechos"). By example, even if I am convinced it is wiser to drive by the right side if I am in England I would think a little bit before imposing it.

If the case is so severe and clear (to me) as it is in abortion topic I would remove supports.

---------------------------------------------

Regarding the initial topic there are many politicians in Spain who are nominally RC (from left to right, including communists) whose position spread from I-don't-speak-about-this to something-has-to-be-done-but-I-do-nothing.

I think for them it is more a matter of ambition for power than obedience or not to the church. I think many of them are convinced about abortion (not because official church says so, but because of personal feelings), but they prefer not to move in order not to be moved. Other many RC politicians simply don't think a shit about ethics and so they simply do the more politically correct deeds.

---------------------------------------

I think RC Church mistake has been to stress the same tiny sexual sins as abortions. So simple people think:

1) I can't obey RC view of use of condom.
2) Priest attack even more condoms than abortion.
3) So I don't feel I have no obligation of sharing RC point of view about abortion.

I think even if you are a member of a church (or the communist party, which is more or less the same ) your organisation has the right/duty to impose you some commandments: "If you are a RC/communist/member of the society... you must drive by the right side/pay taxes...". The difference with fanatism is that these imposed beliefs can not shock with your personal reason.

I.e. "boxers" in 1900 China believed that certain movements before the battle made them inmune to bullets. Well, if the first 200 died because of bullets a non-fanatical boxer should think something.

Positive example: It is hard to me to believe in Maria's virginity but, well, since we assume it is a "special" case I have no objection accepting it. (Of course I don't believe in my female friends' virginity, even if the Pope says it) .

Abortion is even simpler: As I said in other thread, I need no God, no Pope, no obedience to agree abortion is a crime. So RC Church ought to stress how bad was it in comparison with, say, sleeping too much. Instead of that it preferred to fight condom's battle, which was definitely lost, since you would need all your obedience to stay virgin and no-condomed to achieve a less-than-nothing purity (desirable, but that's all).