All Catholics have the choice to leave the Church. You weighed your options and made that choice for yourself. But, how do you justify calling this priest a douchebag? Because he didn't make that same choice? So are you really pro-choice, or just when the choices are all the same? By that token, you are saying that all Catholics who actually follow/proclaim the teachings of the Church are douchebags, I guess.

That's the thing. Any sane person is going to agree that, by the time a baby is born alive, it's, well, alive. And many world religions, including my own, dictate, "Thou shalt not kill." So murdering the two-day-old baby is wrong. BUT not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. If you think life begins at conception, fine, don't have an abortion. But I DON'T believe life begins at conception. There's no proof either way. So until there is conclusive proof either way, kindly stay out of my uterus.

THANK YOU.

But AEPhiAlum, you have consciously made the choice to leave the Church, as has Jill and countless others. Why should it it surprise or anger you that this priest, or anyone still within the Church, said what he said? It seems that your issue isn't really this priest, but rather the teachings of the Church.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

If you choose to be Catholic, you choose to accept everything that goes with being Catholic. That includes forgoing premarital sex, birth control, abortion, and IVF. You personally won't engage in these practices.

But that doesn't mean that you have to actively pursue legislation (and by extension, legislators and executives who will support such legislation) that will prevent people who don't share Catholic views from obtaining safe birth control and abortion for those who do not want children, and IVF for those who want children but can't conceive without medical intervention.

Pro-choice is exactly that: pro-CHOICE. No one is forcing pregnant women to line up for abortions. Pregnant women can choose for themselves whether to abort, carry to term and keep the baby, or carry to term and place the baby for adoption. And if they choose to abort, it's legal and safe. No back-alley abortions that land women in hospitals with severe sepsis, and no one forced to go through with a pregnancy she does not want.

What does this priest think of people who supported McCain, who is a strong supporter of the death penalty, even wanting to expand it to crimes other than murder? I don't understand how someone can be "pro-life" and yet so pro-capital punishment. If one considers abortion murder, surely he/she must agree that killing a living human being outside of the womb is murder. Is it really our job to pass a lethal judgment on someone, or is that only God's duty? According to this priest, people should only be concerned with what God's judgment should be in the taking of a fetus' life; so why then should we not wait for God's judgment of murderers and take their lives instead?

It might just be because I'm tired, but the first thing I thought after reading this was "She forgot 'chicken or fish'." :rolleyes:

I would like to point out to everyone that legalizing abortions (or keeping them legal) will not erase the occurence of "back alley" abortions. Furthermore, any medical procedure carries a huge amount of risk and have the potential to be "botched." The chances are not remotely equal, but they are still present in BOTH scenarios.
AMEN.

That being said, even if both sides respected the fact that each side sees it differently...they will continue to see it differently. This is the very reason why this debate will never die.

Grace is a concept that applies to all of us (sinners) and is only given by God through Jesus Christ. Given that it is God who extends His grace to us, then who is the Church to decide who is in a state of grace and who is not? Given that sinners are EVERYBODY, not just people who have committed acts on "the special list" then are we not all living in a perpetual state of grace? This isn't directed at you, irish, I just really felt the need to say it. This priest (and others like him) needs to get off his high horse because supporting Obama does not mean I am not worthy of a connection with God. No other human's beliefs have bearing on mine and supporting a man who supports an issue does not make me support the issue by extension. Even if it did, God's presence is not a nightclub. If you are going to bring people to Him THEN DO IT. He didn't ask for you to check IDs and attire so you can pick and choose who comes to the table.

Some people look to religion for moral guidance in how to vote for candidates though. The issues they support are in line with their faith.

This post is exactly why I previously posted that this is an issue for Catholics. Your definition of grace is not the issue here, and your post indicates that you do not understand Catholic teachings on grace or of ordination and priesthood. This priest was not directing his comments at you, since you aren't Catholic.

Selective Reduction is considered a form of abortion. See the rest of this thread for the Roman Catholic Church's stand on abortion.

Also, Fertility treatments ARE NOT against the Roman Catholic Church. Certain fertility drugs are perfectly acceptable. Some fertility treatments are not acceptable- a rule of thumb is if conception occurs outside the womb, then it's a no. There is even a fertility center in Omaha (I think) that is a Roman Catholic Fertility center- they do all sorts of procedures to help a couple get pregnant.



Thank you!

Whoa, coming into the conversation late. Where to start.I think you're overstating the "pro" here SWTXBelle; this latter post gets closer to where I think we need to be. I am pro-choice; I am also, generally speaking, anti-abortion. The "pro" is not because I am "for abortion," and that is what "pro-abortion" would mean. As a moral matter, I think abortion is almost always morally wrong and is always a tragedy. As a political matter, I recognize that there are a variety of beliefs on this subject in the US, and therefore I think this is an area where the government should not interfere, at least early in pregnancy. Politically, therefore, I think the decision (choice) must rest with the mother (and perhaps the father), not the government. Hence, pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I agree completely. It sounded from reports earlier this week like the US Conference of Catholic Bishops might be moving this direction and backing off the idea of "no voting for pro-choice candidates." Anyone know what happened?

As SWTXBelle said, you'd less rigidity in some Protestant churches. While I don't think any would say abortion is a good thing, some are more willing to leave the decision to the affected parties rather than to have a blanket condemnation. I think most mainline Protestant churches would fall in this catagory. My denomination (the Presbyterian Church (USA)) basically opposes abortion as a means of birth control and gender selection, affirms adoption as a preferable alternative in cases of unwanted children and says that abortion should be the choice of last resort in problem pregnancies. But it ultimately leaves the decision to the parents.

Just to clarify, in some Protestant denominations, the bread and wine are seen as symbolic, but not in all Protestant denominations. The Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican and Reformed/Presbyterian churches all reject the idea that the elements are only symbolic and teach some form of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. (Yes, even the Presbyterian churches. Even though Zwinglian teaching on the subject (that the elements are symbolic) can be found among Presbyterians, the confessions uniformly reject the idea that the elements are only symbols.)

Oh no way am I calling all Catholics douchebags, and I don't appreciate that assumption. Some of my dearest friends and family members are Catholic (including my best friend). There are some things I love about the church and some of my best memories are in the church. Hell, 11 years ago it helped me kick cigarettes because I needed to give up something for Lent. I gave up cigarettes and haven't touched one since.

I just think that priest is an extremist. Is he gonna ask every parishoner "you voted for Obama? No? Proceed. Yes? GTF outta my communion line!"
None of his business and he IMO is making the church look bad

Point taken. But with IUI (inter uterine insemination), conception is in the womb. However, the male counterpart has to do his donation outside the womb (and yes, I know the church looks down on "handling your business")...so is that a no?

So if a couple has done all the low tech procedures and some of the higher tech (IUI) and have resort to IVF, gestational carriers, or surrogacy are they SOL and should not be able to take communion? :confused:

Just wondering

Slightly off tangent observation....

Ever notice that those people who are the most for or against a particular party/candidate/elected official, usually base their arguments on one of two things - abortion and gun control.

I am talking about the everyday person who doesn't have much more to say in a discussion about politics...it's usually one of these two highly emotionally charged issues that makes the decision for them.

People are nutty.

As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.

The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.

I'm teaching English 1301, and there are four topics my students may NOT write their research paper on: abortion, gun control, capital punishment and legalization of drugs. If I never have to read a paper on those four topics again, I can die a happy woman. :)