{Debate} Pro-Choice Catholics Told to Confess

[Tiggeroo]

I do not actively seek out a politician for it's stance on Roe V Wade. My vote is based on other policies. My personal belief is that I am against abortion.

This is alot different then seeking out a pro-choice candidate. However, if you know that you are choosing a candidate for a position that has the ability to allow abortion or limit it then I think you do need to have this be a deciding issue. If you are anti-abortion. In all but crucial elections the Catholic church has rarely spoken out on voting practices. It's only when a candidate is outspoken about their abortion views and is also Catholic that I have seen this come up.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Originally posted by pokiemomo181
You can't have it both ways. You are either Catholic or not. You can't pick which rules you don't like and follow the ones you do. If the rules are more than you are willing to follow, there are a lot of religions out there that would better fit your style. Try one of those.


Pokie

This is true and I may do that, forever. In fact I have walked away several times because of that.
So I do understand your position.

I guess I can describe it as being in "limbo". I just can't see myself as any other religion. Maybe I will change and maybe not. Time will tell.

 

[jrydberg]

The Catholic religion is very different from other forms of Christianity in this respect. What was the Protestant Reformation about, after all? Protestantism is all about individuals interpreting things and applying it to their lives. Catholicism is not a democratic religion. There are certain core beliefs that the Catholic religion stands for whether you agree with them or not. This is not a minor point in the Catholic church. One cannot be a Catholic in good standing while unrepentantly supporting a position that the Catholic church considers to be sinful.

 

[bananiem]

Once again I'm going to have to agree with AFR. 44 years ago it was a different story.
I don't know very many people who vote for a certain politician based on ONE of their policies (that'll change once they're in office anyway). I used to vote pretty strictly one party. In the last state election I choose to vote another party for governor based on a few of his views- none of which had to do with abortion. I don't think anyone has the right to tell me who I can or can't vote for.
Personally, I could never go through with an abortion. But what if the other candidate is a pro-gun, death-penalty, decrease funding to public schools kind of politician. I should vote for that instead?

 

[LScot]

Personally, I don't think God cares whether you are a good Catholic or a good Methodist or a good Baptist. I think God wants to to be a good Christian. I don't think it matters what my church says about any issue--what does God say? Read the Bibe and you'll know. Plain and simple. If it isn't there, I guess it doesn't matter too much.

God sees into our hearts. Individually. Not a s a group. It doesn't matter what the guy next to you does--it matters what you do or don't do.

If you lie in confession about how sorry you really are, what do you think? That God doesn't know? There's no fooling God. You may food the Priest and fool your friends but you KNOW and God knows.

If you think it is OK to take the life of an unborn child, that is between you and God. Is it OK with God to do it? I'd pull my Bible out and see what it says. I think a Church should take a stand on things that are very clear to be right and wrong in the Bible. Then, you can see what the churches stance is on a issue and decide whether that church is right for you. If you church takes a stand on an issue that doesn't really matter (take for instance the SBC boycotting WDW), then it doesn't matter whether you agree with the church or not. The Bible isn't concerned with such an issue--even indirectly. But if it is something bigger (Say they decided you should pray to a statue of GWB or BC) then you have issues because your church is asking you do something that is directly spoken about in the Bible.

I think you have to vote for the person who matches your beliefs thew most. Searching your heart, thinking you have picked the best person for the job no matter whether they are Democrat or republican.

 

[tonyswife]

Something just occured to me, in America if you are talking about JUST the two major parties, Catholics are screwed. Most Democrats are pro-choice and most Republicans are pro-death penalty so, who do they vote for? The official Catholic position on both of these issues is staunchly anti . So, in order to be Catholic you have to find a politician who is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, not an easy task. The only other option would be to not vote. Interesting.

 

[bananiem]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Something just occured to me, in America if you are talking about JUST the two major parties, Catholics are screwed. Most Democrats are pro-choice and most Republicans are pro-death penalty so, who do they vote for? The official Catholic position on both of these issues is staunchly anti . So, in order to be Catholic you have to find a politician who is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, not an easy task. The only other option would be to not vote. Interesting.

My point exactly!!! Thank you, tonyswife!
I think you have to choose whichever candidate supports the majority of what you want. People shouldn't be voting for somebody just so the other candidates ONE stance doesn't get voted in.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Something just occured to me, in America if you are talking about JUST the two major parties, Catholics are screwed. Most Democrats are pro-choice and most Republicans are pro-death penalty so, who do they vote for? The official Catholic position on both of these issues is staunchly anti . So, in order to be Catholic you have to find a politician who is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, not an easy task. The only other option would be to not vote. Interesting.

I would be curious as to why you are saying the Bible is against the death penalty. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, I'm more interested in what has led you to believe this? My take is, the Bible states, an eye for an eye. It also was never written that thou shall not kill, it was thou shall not murder. Two separate issues to me. Anyway, just curious?

edit: I might have initially misunderstood your position. Is this something that is just a rule in the Catholic Church, or is backed up by scripture?

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I would be curious as to why you are saying the Bible is against the death penalty. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, I'm more interested in what has led you to believe this? My take is, the Bible states, an eye for an eye. It also was never written that thou shall not kill, it was thou shall not murder. Two separate issues to me. Anyway, just curious?

We all have our own takes on what the Bible says about the death penalty, but tonyswife is talking about the Catholic Church's. (or am I putting words in your mouth, tonyswife?) The Pope is against it. The Holy Father and I find ourselves in agreement on this matter (I'm sure he's very relieved! )

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by auntpolly
We all have our own takes on what the Bible says about the death penalty, but tonyswife is talking about the Catholic Church's. (or am I putting words in your mouth, tonyswife?) The Pope is against it. The Holy Father and I find ourselves in agreement on this matter (I'm sure he's very relieved! )

Thanks for responding. I edited my last post because I really misunderstood the stance the 1st time I read it. I think it was selective understanding? LOL

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Thanks for responding. I edited my last post because I really misunderstood the stance the 1st time I read it. I think it was selective understanding? LOL

Sorry, I jumped in there before you even had a chance to edit! The death penalty is one of those really complicated issues that I'll bet we could play "dueling scripture" over for a long time and never settle it. But one thing about the Catholics -- we're not so likely to look to the old testament for the answers. We believe that Jesus brought us a new covenant, and while the old testament helps us understand our history and has much to offer, the new testament takes great precedance. At least that's what I was taught and what I believe.

 

[tonyswife]

LOL. Right. I don't know what process led the Catholic Church to be anti-death penalty, I just know that they are anti-death penalty. I was also not commenting on the biblical validity of their position, I was just making an observation on their seemingly selective politcizing of their dogma.

In any case, to your comment about an "eye for an eye" being in the Bible, yes, it's there, in the Old Testament, in the book of Exodus I believe. But, it is part of the Old Testament or the Old Covenant. It is my understanding that Jesus Christ sealed the New Convenenant with his Resurrection and that the old law or Old Covenant no longer applies since the only thing required for salvation is faith in Christ. Now, I'm not particularly religious and I'm certainly not a Biblical Scholar of even a student of theology, but that is my very limited understanding of the issue. Take it for what it's worth, LOL, which is, admittadly, not much.

 

[KaraKW]

I am not a one-issue voter, and I don't think God is a one-issue judge of character!

 

[palmtreegirl]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Something just occured to me, in America if you are talking about JUST the two major parties, Catholics are screwed. Most Democrats are pro-choice and most Republicans are pro-death penalty so, who do they vote for? The official Catholic position on both of these issues is staunchly anti . So, in order to be Catholic you have to find a politician who is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, not an easy task. The only other option would be to not vote. Interesting.

You should write a letter to Archbishop Raymond Burke and tell him that.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Something just occured to me, in America if you are talking about JUST the two major parties, Catholics are screwed. Most Democrats are pro-choice and most Republicans are pro-death penalty so, who do they vote for?

It's not just the Catholics. Heathens like me who are pro abortion and pro death penalty are hosed as well.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by KaraKW
I am not a one-issue voter, and I don't think God is a one-issue judge of character!

me, either. but, i'd be willing to bet that if you support someone's right to murder a defensiveless baby, then god...if there is such an entity...is perparing a special corner of hell with your name on it....if there even is a hell....still not sure on that one either...

 

[palmtreegirl]

nevermind, should've hit that back button.

 

[WhenUwishUponAstar]

I don't understand why Pro-choice has to mean Pro-abortion. I think it's is for the person to decide not the 50 something year old white males that are the majority of the law making body. That does not however mean that *I* personally believe in it or would participate. Although<b> after </b>both of my miscarriages I had to have d&c's because nature did not take it's course and my health was at risk (won't go into the gory details) it was listed both times on my insurance as an abortion even though each time the babies were already dead.

 

[PatriciaH]

Originally posted by The Mystery Machine
So the $$$$million dollar$$$$ question is...."If you vote democratic are you sinning?"

My answer to that is no, and until the Pope says voting democratic is a SIN then I will continue to be Catholic.

What is your take on this?

Well, if you vote Republican you will be sinning too because Bush is for the Death penality-sooooo... who are Catholics supposed to vote for???

 

[auntpolly]

Even though there are those here that have designated "special places in Hell" for those of us Catholics who may vote for a pro-choice politician, there seems to be quite a few priests and theologians who would disagree. This is long, but worth reading.


<b>From the NYTimes by Peter Stienfels - July 26)</b>
Last week's conference statement was meant, the document said, to "highlight several points from the interim report'' of a task force of seven leading prelates who were appointed last fall to develop a full document for the bishops to consider this November.


It is that interim report that has become available on the Web site (www.usccb.org). The material on the Web site, it should be emphasized, does not contradict what the bishops voted 183 to 6 to highlight a week ago. But the interim report has much information that the brief statement excluded and goes much further in its conclusions.


The summary of the task force's consultations, for example, presented by Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore, confirmed what many observers had surmised:<b> the overwhelming weight of opinion was against public sanctions involving communion. </b> <i>That was the view of three-quarters of the bishops offering the task force their opinion. Theologians, experts in church law and the Catholic officials who interact directly with politicians on the state and national levels told the task force the same thing.</i>


<b>When the task force raised the question with bishops' conferences in other countries, it found that none had felt obliged to develop policies regarding Catholic politicians, especially about their reception of communion.</b>


Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., reported on the views of Vatican officials and specifically of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose role in safeguarding Catholic teaching has made him the object of speculation.


Cardinal Ratzinger, according to Cardinal McCarrick, held that consistent campaigning for permissive laws on abortion could in principle constitute grounds for denial of communion, but that <b>it remained up to the American bishops to decide, as Cardinal McCarrick put it, "not simply whether denial of communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent.''</b>


<i>Cardinal Ratzinger also drew a sharp distinction between Catholic public officials and Catholic voters. Specifically, <b>he found no problem with church members who might vote for a candidate who strongly endorsed access to abortion for other political reasons.</b></i>


The task force, like the conference's eventual statement, restated the church's clear position that "<b>every bishop has the right and duty to address these realities in his own diocese.''</b>


But the task force did not stop there. "We were asked to consult broadly and offer advice and so we will,'' it said. That advice began with the emphasis on teaching and persuading and<b> encouraging Catholics to act on their principles without seeking to endorse or oppose candidates</b> - all points incorporated into the conference statement.


A key piece of that advice was: "<b>Our task force does not advocate the denial of communion for Catholic politicians or Catholic voters in these circumstances.''</b>


The task force spelled out its reasons for this conclusion.<b> "The sacred nature of the eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground.'' The floodgates would be opened to debates about "what other issues might lead to denial of holy communion.''</b> Catholics upholding church teaching in public life might be perceived not as representing their own moral convictions but merely "as under pressure from the hierarchy.''


On the other hand, Catholics "who bend to the political winds'' could pose "as courageous resistors of episcopal authority.'' The lesson of the past, it said, was that "such actions have often been counterproductive.'' <b>They "could push many people farther from the church and its teaching, rather than bringing them closer.''</b>


"No one should mistake our task force's reservations about refusing communion or public calls to refrain from communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles,'' the interim report said. Still, the task force urged "not penalties'' but renewed efforts "<b>to teach clearly, advocate effectively, organize and mobilize Catholic laity and to engage, persuade and challenge Catholic politicians to act on the moral teaching of our church.''</b>


The fact that these documents were so quickly posted on the Web site suggests that the task force did not want the difference in emphasis and detail between their interim report and the conference's official statement to go unnoticed. That leaves unexplained, however, exactly why the bishops as a whole chose to include and exclude what they did.


Two factors apparently played important roles in shaping the statement. One was brevity. There was strong pressure to distill the interim documents to the length of an op-ed article.


The second was unity, the desire not to challenge the sincerity and fidelity of either those <b>few bishops</b> who have made the reception of communion a public marker in their opposition to legalized abortion or the larger number who disagree with that approach.


Given the shadow of the sexual abuse scandal that already burdens the bishops' public standing, is this whole exercise somewhat beside the point? In fact, by highlighting the hierarchy's responsibility not only to teach clearly and authoritatively but also to persuade, to welcome dialogue, to engage in real conversation with Catholics in political life and with those, Catholic or not, who are unconvinced of the church's teaching, both the interim report and the conference's statement imply a distinctly different way of being a bishop.


Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco, whose theological reflections for the task force include a thoughtful response to the 48 Catholic members of Congress voicing concerns about the withholding of communion on the basis of voting records, made a similar observation yesterday.


The current situation, Archbishop Levada said, "shows not only that Catholic politicians need an opportunity to look at church teaching in a deeper way, but that we bishops have a lot to learn about the practicalities and the steps involved in political judgments, including political platforms and party relationships.


"We have to envision a dialogue that is not just one way,'' he said.