Bishops mull fighting abortion, gay marriage

Dear Clint Green,
"As the late Cardinal O'Connor used to say, you cannot be a Catholic and be for abortion."
Can one be Catholic and be for capital punishment even if it's imposed as a "legal sentence"? Can one be Catholic and approve of war, whether it's called "just" or "unjust"? Can one be Catholic and support the sale and possession of firearms by unsupervised private indivuduals, whether the weapons are for pleasure or protection? Can one be Catholic and rest easy while the majority of our sisters and brothers, even in our own country, don't have adequate food, shelter, clothing or access to clean water and essential health care? Can one be Catholic and not work tirelessly for immigration reform? Can one be Catholic and not suffer constantly because of the lack of respect for and abuse of life not just at and from conception, but after birth, through the growing and learning years, during the adult and senior years, up to and until the moment of natural death. Can one be Catholic and not decry the disregard and abuse of God's creation?
Or can one simply say, "I am anti-abortion", sign petitions, picket clinics and offices, bully and intimidate legislators and voters, and oppose any change or progress in our civil society unless it is blessed and approved by the "good" bishops, and thereby be Cathoic? Catholic maybe. Christian, not quite.
Paz y Bien, Rolando.

For women and children who have been sexually exploited and abused by clergy it’s not “the same old thing” or a frivolous matter of no consequence.     Their lives are forever scarred by predator clergy who violated trust and walk away as if nothing happened,   while being protected by the chief shepherds of the Church.     Enabling bishops have also been protected and even promoted.     There are ongoing documented cases of playboy clergy preying on vulnerable women and fathering children,   abandoning them   (or aborting them).     All of this continues to go on with the full knowledge of the bishops.     They continue to do nothing unless the priests are caught and exposed in the media.     The documented evidence and statistics are simply staggering.     That is why SNAP and several other victims’ advocacy groups world-wide continue to exist and offer help,   because the Catholic bishops use all the powers of the Church to silence the victims and cover-up the evidence.     It’s the worst kind of clericalism with mortal sin run amok and without consequence.
.
No,   the Church has NOT always taught for 2000 years that abortion is murder.     The Catholic Church has changed its stance on abortion throughout history — primarily to protect monks and priests who fathered children and sought abortion as a solution for the "problem".     Read the history of the Church and the writings of the Church fathers.     Here are a few starting points:

"Circa 380 CE:   The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy.     But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE)   accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment".     He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body.     Thus,   early in pregnancy,   an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed.

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):   determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not "animated" at the time.     Early in the 13th century,   he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" — when the woman first feels movement of the fetus.     Before that time,   abortion was a less serious sin,   because it terminated only potential human person,   not an actual human person.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591)   revoked the Papal bull of his predecessor and reinstated the "quickening" test,   which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks)."

But THEN...   Pope Pius IX, (19th century)   after declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and forcing “papal infallibility” through the first Vatican Council for very political reasons,   then declared “life beginning at conception”   …as we know it today.   (Probably the only way to make logical sense of his Immaculate Conception dogma).     Never-the-less,   an infant born dead was not construed to be “innocent life” and could not be buried in consecrated ground because it had not been baptized.
.
There is plenty more information to be found over the history of the Church — you can read it for yourself.     A person would have to be brain-dead to not see the ecclesiastical inconsistency here,   or to not question the severity of punishment being imposed in the present day for infractions against this single-issue litmus test of Catholicity where no exceptions are allowed.
.
Catholics for Choice believe that a woman’s body is her own property,   not belonging to anyone else and their ownership,   including Catholic bishops.     The days of slavery in the U.S. are over — though these bishops are doing their durnedest to reinstate it.     Pregnancy is NOT a religious issue,   it is a physiological-medical issue,   subject to many complications.     Women are competent to consult with their physicians about their own PRIVATE medical conditions and the appropriate medical care.     It is no one else’s business.     Some of the demeaning comments directed toward women about the abortion issue are frankly insulting,   and show the hysterical ignorance of those who make those uninformed comments.     Any teaching that places the value of a blastocyst or embryo over the value of the life of the pregnant woman,   is blatant misogyny,   reducing the dignity of women to nothing more than disposable incubators.     It is a teaching not received,   even among those of us who are ‘daily Mass’ people.     One does not have to be stupid and ignorant in order to be a faithful Catholic.
.
The men who are most offensively vocal about women’s reproductive issues,   would themselves have a hissy-fit if a powerful group women mandated harsh rules and sacramental penalties for men about the use of their male reproductive organs or designating who exactly has ownership of those organs being someone else!     Wailing and protest would be heard from those men 24/7 around the world.     Sheesh!!!     You can bet they would quickly educate themselves on Church history as part of the "deposit of faith".     For those who insist that obedience requires acceptance of slavery,   offer your own body to clerical domination,   but not someone else's.

How do you arrive at such a narrow and judgmental conclusion?
.
How can a person make a moral choice when they have nothing to choose from?     He/she cannot.     The Catholic Church   (ONLY since Pius IX, not before)  teaches that abortion is always outlawed without any exception,   not even for the life of the mother,   with the penalty being excommunication should she end the pregnancy to save her own life.
.
By your own admission,   the mother's only remaining choice in that case is to die...   and the fetus or embryo dies with her.     Theologically,   there can be NO merit in this so-called "moral choice" because the Church had taken her God-given free will and conscience away from her with a 'pre-choice' threat of severe punishment for any other option than choosing her own death.     Hence,   the woman had no actual choice and could gain no merit.
.
The main problem with the most strident anti-abortion groups is that they have little factual knowledge of Church history and theology,   and even less factual medical knowledge.     Some simply opt-out of any reasonable thinking at all and just repeat what they are told.     Outside of their standard talking points they become lost.
.
The current teaching and canonical penalties regarding abortion are NOT dogma (a very important distinction) — and neither the bishops of the USCCB nor any other conference have ecclesiastical authority to proclaim an infallible dogma mandating assent.     The current Church teaching conflicts with the preceding 1850 years of Church teaching and practice on the subject.
.
You might want to rethink your assumptions and judgments as to who qualifies as a "believing Christian".

Excellent point,   Craig,   ...and that kind of toxic co-dependence can lead to a warped theological perspective.

Within the growing divisions in the Church,   some who direct hate-filled words toward other brothers and sisters in Christ   (and inviting them to "leave" the Church),   come to view that hate as actually being "love"...   love for their concept of "church" and as defenders of the faith.

I agree with your comments on toxicity in the church.

However, I do believe that God does, in fact, need us because God is Love, and Love/love is extending Oneself/oneself for the benefit of the beloved, i.e., all of us. Love cannot exist in a vacuum. God needs us as much as we need God.

That said, I can only imagine God weeping at the crap coming out of Rome and from the mouths and pens of hierarchs sucking up to the Vatican.

Some answers that might help a little...

DOGMA

Roman Catholic Dogma is:   "a truth revealed by God,   which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding".     The faithful are required to accept with the divine and Catholic faith all the Church presents as solemn dogma.

Not all doctrine/teachings are dogma.   The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma,   if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmas.

Not all truth are dogma.   The Bible contains many sacred truths,   which the faithful recognize and agree with,   but which the Church has not defined as dogma.

Most Church teachings are NOT dogma.   Cardinal Avery Dulles points out that in the 800 pages of the documents of the Second Vatican Council,   there is not one new statement for which infallibility is claimed.

The concept of dogma has two elements:   Immediate divine revelation from scripture or tradition,   and,   a proposition of the Church,   which not only announces the dogma but also declares it binding for the faith.     **This may occur through an ex-cathedra decision by a Pope,   or   by an Ecumenical Council.**

New dogmas can be declared through the ages.   The 19th century introduced the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Pius IX.     The 20th century witnessed the introduction of the dogma of Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII in 1950.     And a movement to declare a fifth Marian dogma for Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix is in process.

Best reference book on Catholic Dogma (with list):   Dr. Ludwig Ott,   Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
.

DOCTRINE

Doctrines are teachings of the Catholic Church,   such as:

The doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ — Eucharist
Catholic social teaching
Marian teachings
Seal of the confessional
Moral theology — religious ethics
Reserved cases for the absolution of sin
….etc.
.

The question:   A Cardinal’s document as absolute truth and must be accepted per se?
Answer:   NO.
.

EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Vatican I Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff,   when he speaks ex cathedra — in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines,   by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority,   a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.     It is to be noted that:

•   What is claimed for the pope is infallibility only,   not impeccability or inspiration.

•   The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature,   scope,   and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses;   his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

•   infallibility is NOT attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope,   but only to his ex cathedra teaching;   and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

o   The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor,   not merely in his private capacity as a theologian,   preacher,   nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome.     It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

o   It is only when,   in this capacity,   he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

o   Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority,   in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way.

o   For an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church.     To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei).     The presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way,   he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

.

Doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations,   even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way,   have no claim to be considered infallible.     To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.
.

Peace.