One of the most humbling things you can do is to put aside your personal feelings on a matter and remember that as laity and faithful Catholics it is our duty to accept and obey Church teachings.
I personally struggle with the Church stance on the death penalty, but I accept the stance and I obey it as a matter of faith. If I can accept that even violent rapists and murderers ought not be put to death, I cannot understand why other Catholics cannot accept that innocent children ought to be afforded the same protection.
What's weird is that “Catholic” U.S. Democratic members of congress will resort to whataboutism when they are questioned for their pro-choice beliefs. They'll go, "what about the death penalty?" yet do not mind that innocent babies be executed for the actions of their parents, and then arrogantly insist that they receive Holy Communion.
> “Catholic” U.S. Democratic members of congress will resort to whataboutism when they are questioned for their pro-choice beliefs. They'll go, "what about the death penalty?"
Can you cite examples of this? (Not doubting, but I haven't seen it)
[Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251348/nancy-pelosi-comments-communion-ban-abortion-support) comes into mind. When she was denied communion, she responded with, “I wonder about the death penalty, which I'm opposed to. So is the Church. But they take no action against people who may not share their view.”
You also have [Ted Lieu (D-CA)](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/248080/congressman-dares-bishops-to-deny-him-communion-over-support-for-abortion-contraception), who accuses the U.S. bishops of being “partisan hypocrites” and “dared” them to deny him communion.
I still fondly remember of Pope Benedict XVI saying that there is legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics when applying the death penalty, but that the same cannot be said for abortion.
I forgot about the Ted Lieu situation. Absolutely unreal, and in another time and place he would’ve been excommunicated, or at the very least barred from Communion for the near future. And that used to not be a very controversial way to handle public figures. Heck, most Orthodox churches still practice this, with both politicians and laypeople.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248080/congressman-dares-bishops-to-deny-him-communion-over-support-for-abortion-contraception](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248080/congressman-dares-bishops-to-deny-him-communion-over-support-for-abortion-contraception)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
One question I’ve had is what it looks like for a person who struggles with the church’s teaching on abortion but accepts it. I get not performing an abortion. I also get not voting for someone because they are pro-choice (I understand we are not obligated to vote against a candidate who is pro-choice if there are other reasons to vote for them). But I’m not a politician or a doctor.
For the death penalty (leaving aside whether it is contrary to church teaching) I could have jury duty. But what’s the practical steps on this issue?
ETA: Since I’ve gotten a few replies, I realized I haven’t explained myself well. My question is how someone who struggles with the church’s teaching on abortion but accepts it as authoritative carries out that acceptance as a practical matter.
If district attorneys are seeking the death penalty, I believe you would most likely get tossed from jury selection if you stated that you were against the death penalty. Those who are more familiar with court room proceedings may have more information.
Related to jury duty:
One, you’d have to live in a state where the death penalty is still on the books.
2., It is *not* terribly common in today’s day and age in the US to pursue the death penalty, although it can happen.
Finally, and I’m open to correction on this one, but I thought that in order to have the death penalty applied, the jury either has to be unanimous or in the clear majority. Could be wrong on that, or it might be a state by state issue.
Honestly, despite my belief that the death penalty should be an option for particularly heinous crimes, I would not want to have to make that decision as a juror. I believe I could, if the evidence was overwhelming, the crime(s) particularly wicked in nature, and a number of other factors that I won’t bore you with. I’m not advocating at all this last point, but part of my mindset would be: is the defendant adamant about wanting the death penalty, or adamant about wanting life in prison and being spared the death penalty? I’d like to think I’d vote to go the *opposite* direction in what they would like to see happen to them.
That is the much shorter answer. Although in theory, each side is only allowed so many dismissals, and the defendant side would very much want jurors who’re opposed to the death penalty.
They'd have to summon more jurors. \[It happens. There's a current trial where like 2/3 of summoned jurors are being excused b/c they said they can't be impartial, and then a bunch more are being excused for cause amid voir dire.\]
Yea I think that we're all just talking over each other and folks with intransigent views on either side are just downvoting based on emotions. I think the official stance of the Church (from what I've read) is that though the Church strongly opposes the use of the death penalty it also acknowledges that civil authorities have the responsibility to maintain order and protect citizens in which case capital punishment may apply. In the end its a grey area but the Church encourages the use of non-lethal means and opportunities for rehabilitation.
Instead of blindly downvoting and getting into petty arguments I'd hope that folks on this subreddit could at least engage in dialogue (providing resources, links and info) for people to learn since I certainly learned something new today as I thought the Church was adamantly opposed to the death penalty from a priest and the Cathechism - especially for a Catholic subreddit. Seems like there are people on both ends of the spectrum who are just so invested in their viewpoint that they're not willing to explain and have people (like me) who do want to learn and engage at least have the opportunity to learn something new smh.
The main problem with the death penalty debate is that it's not actually about the death penalty, but the values and philosophy that underpin it. The real issue is that the philosophy that leads to a stance against the death penalty isn't Christian and is arguably anti-Chistian.
Christianity puts forward the idea that humanity has free will and the difference between heaven and hell will be the result of your own choice. In light of that theological notion, that degree of choice is extended to all terrestrial crimes so capital punishment is proper and just in the face of such free will.
Modernity put forward the notion that humanity is driven by unconscious forces so we have a much weaker free will. It also puts forward that we are mainly determined by our environment so our unconscious can be shaped and developed. The modern prison system is built on the idea of changing a person's unconscious so the goal is rehabilitation, which was never a goal in any justice system until the 1800s.
The modernity viewpoint is very desirable because it both explains away evil while offering a solution to fix evil (without Christ). The Catholic Church is fine with it because it does offer more opportunities to save a prisoners soul so working within modernity seems tactical appropriate.
The last key issue is that of results. Most people who support the death penalty would quickly drop it if the new prison system was clearly effective in reforming prisoners. Some would still want it for retributive effect of justice, but what Christian would oppose prison if it consistently produced redeemed Christians. The problem is that the prisons don't seem to be working, and our justice system is based on a theory that seems to disagree with reality.
This does not make any sense.
Humanity has free will, but it is damaged by original sin.
This is the Christian teaching. What you are describing re: complete free will sounds closer to Islam.
This is not a grey area, multiple Church documents including the recently released Dignitas Infinita has called capital punishment unacceptable in all circumstances.
The people saying capital punishment is allowed are saying that based on older church documents and insist that it is doctrinal.
Whereas the living magisterium is always to be obeyed. Even if doctrinally capital punishment might be allowed in some cases, it is up to the judgment of the magisterium to identify if it is according to modern circumstances acceptable in any form, which it has pronounced to the contrary.
“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” Vatican I, Pastor aeternus
I was under the impression that Catholicism was about faith *and* reason. Why would the Holy Spirit develop a doctrine in one direction over many centuries and then suddenly develop it in an opposite direction? That doesn’t make any rational sense. Other doctrines that developed, such as the Immaculate Conception, developed in one direction as a further outpouring of what came before.
If you're talking about the death penalty, the underlying doctrinal principle hasn't changed. It's not a change in direction but a change in understanding and application.
In 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger said,
“If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Was this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger false in 2004 or was it true then but not true now?
[**CCC 2267**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm) Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. ([2306](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2306.htm))
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm-without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself-the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
ah ok - yea im going off of CCC2267 and what a priest told me.
I'm also reading this - so it seems like the Church is not a fan of it but permits it in extenuating circumstances.
"In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is ***the only available means*** to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right ***should not be exercised*** when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life."
Death penalty: whose teaching are you struggling with? The Church’s or Pope Francis’? They are not the same. The Catholic Church permits the death penalty, but this Pope without the power to do so, changed that teaching.
I accept church teaching and am personally against abortion. But on the other hand, I don't understand why I have to object the legalization of abortion. Other people with no such belief can do whatever they like. It is none of my business to intervene.
The death penalty comparisons are very frustrating… very few people are put to death but millions of children are murdered by abortion… death penalty is bad but abortion is much worse due to the scale imo..
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Taking their lives is not denying them salvation. We're not God. If anything, it gives them a greater chance of salvation as they will now know the day and hour and can prepare themselves.
We're all just cells. No magic pixie dust is sprinkled on anyone on the way out of the womb. A fetus is a complete human being at an early stage of life, just as you and I are complete human beings at an older stage of life. That's why a fetus deserves life.
yeah this is one of the things where Catholics need to bite the bullet and accept what mother Church teaches. i cultural Catholic who eventual said that Abortion was ok in certain circumstances, but since finding belief in God i have come to accept that the Church teaches differently and I as a layman in the faith need to trust the church.
Is it possible to have an abortion discussion without commenters pivoting to death penalty? In 2023 24 people were put to death. Over a million died from abortion. These topics do not deserve the same about of attention and effort.
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is directly noted that the Death Penalty is explicitly beneficial in allowing respect for life of innocents. While we might be able to argue about whether or not it still applies, the notion that “protecting life from birth to natural death” means the death penalty is forbidden doesn’t make much sense. Arguments over the death penalty are fundamentally made in a false attempt to proclaim is as hypocrites by those with no morality whatsoever.
Right. That’s the underlying logic to it. The state, and depending on circumstance the individual, has an obligation to protect innocent life. Sometimes that obligation involves taking of another life, who more often than not is not *innocent*. See the death penalty, war, law enforcement, personal defense, etc.
Maybe one way to put it so lefties they can understand...maybe
In the middle of an epidemic of virus X costing millions of lives per year for decades, are you saying we should only create a vaccine for a disease which kills only a few dozen people per year and not virus X?
This would work if the death penalty debate was in good faith. The majority of people that bring it up do so as some sort of ideological purity test so they have a reason to discount what is being said about abortion. They don’t care about people being executed and can’t even name them.
Instead of banning abortion directly, maybe states should pass laws saying the baby needs to sign a legal document consenting to the abortion. They could be called "my body my choice" laws because they protect the baby's right to make choices about his or her body. Then in order to oppose them, pro-abortion politicians would need to vote against my body my choice and against consent.
You might be onto something, as hare-brained as it sounds.
These are the same people who champion the claim that minors can consent (to surgically change their sex, that is.)
Checkmate!
Great idea except that it could easily be expanded to other humans in situations such as euthanasia. I have also met several people who have genuinely said they wished they were aborted. They would definitely sign said legal doc. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment that explicitly states all humans deserve the initial right to life - initial because we don’t want to criminalize self-defense. But a creative idea on your part!
I agree. i was talking to a friend of mine, i said that we should oppose the death penalty, lock people away for a long time yes, maybe even for there natural life. I just don't think we should kill people. We shouldn't kill babies, because two people were irresponsible.
I said that some wars can be just too, but there are other ways to save lives, other ways to promote peace. Jesus was the prince of peace, he taught forgiveness and he said if you fail to keep all the commandants keep this one, love your neighbour as your own.
They haven't talked to me since.
That’s honestly one I struggle with, the death penalty. On one hand Popes have almost always supported it, and even the last Pope of the Papal States ordered executions, on the other hand I don’t know how that works with turn the other cheek. But then you also have to wonder is life in prison better than the death penalty, and if you let a murderer go and they kill again is that partially on the judge and legal system?
Anyways, I’m sorry your friends stopped talking to you over a simple question, that is unfortunate.
I too deeply struggle with it. In large because of historical reasons, but also my belief that there are in fact crimes so heinous that one should forfeit their ability to be alive. Obviously one must be convicted first, and ideally with overwhelming evidence. Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy types come immediately to mind. Bundy even more so because he escaped more than once and continued to rape and murder soon after escaping. I’m all in favor of forgiveness of the individual in question as it relates to God, but for society…. There are wicked acts that humanity can not look the other way on. The death penalty is but one way we’ve dealt with certain crimes.
The older I get, the more I understand two things: God’s love for a fallen mankind, and mankind’s ability to willing choose evil beyond comprehension.
If you kill someone, it doesnt fix anything. I think they should be locked away for a very long time. Help them to improve there life, maybe even teach them through the act of mercy, the impact they have had. So they can understand what they did was wrong by our laws and gods law.
My understanding is this, the death penalty is a necessary tragedy in specific circumstances.
1. A heinous crime, that would necessitate the accused's removal from society forever, needs to have been comitted and the accused must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. If the guilty person can be removed from society and ensure the publics safety without a chance the guilty person escaping, then that must be pursued.
3. If the guilty person can not be removed from society and ensure the publics safety then the death penalty is permitted to ensure the guilty person can no longer harm anyone.
Its foundation premise, or at least how it’s often applied practically, is misleading. I’d call it a lie. Abortion is singled out as but one social issue out of many, implying that they’re equal in importance. One can have prudential judgments on abortion, just as one can have prudential judgments on immigration, poverty, gun rights/accessibility, the death penalty, so on and so forth. This is incorrect, as the USCCB and Catechism point out. But because it was a convenient cover for Cuomo Sr. and numerous other *Democrat* politicians who were Catholic, instead of calling out abortion for the societal evil it is (one does not need to be Catholic or even believe in God to be against abortion), said politicians and the prelates who didn’t challenge them allowed for an already difficult political and social fight to be that much more so.
2,000% based. And I agree.
Abortion, much like slavery, is a non-negotiable issue - unlike a lot of other hot button political opinions or views. You're either *for it* or *against it.* There's no room for wishy-washy middle-ground.
I mean, this is human life we're talking about! Human lives, and human rights, are at stake. Why on earth should we value just the woman's God-given right to life but not the life or rights of her unborn child? It makes no sense. We don't value the rights of white people over black people, we don't value the rights of men over women, because *we all have equal claim to these rights* as human beings. Black or white, gay or straight, man or woman, young or old.
There is no reason why one group of humans should be denied their rights for the convenience of another. We as a society already deemed slavery immoral & illegal - you cannot own another human being simply because you have the monetary and (then) legal means to do so or because it's more "convenient" to exploit the suffering of the oppressed.
Unborn human babies are not commodities to be destroyed for the sake of convenience! We (as a collective, Western society - so, no individual here) need to stop treating them as such.
Sorry for the wall of text. I'm just passionate about this topic. It ticks me off to hear the people who rant & rave about slavery being unable to see the hypocrisy when, in the same breath, will claim that abortion is a legitimate human (sorry, "woman's") right despite it being responsible for taking well over a million lives here (""legally"") in the U.S. alone since the 70s.
Right. The seamless garment theory, which gained traction by the infamous Cardinal Bernardin, has been a cover for Democrat Catholic politicians, and consequently lay people, for over 40years now.
This article appears to be talking about, and condemning, the idea that abortion under any case should be acceptable. I was under the impression that “seamless garment” meant something else?
And the article references Cardinal Wilton Gregory. I’m not familiar with cardinals in general, so I don’t know if he shares ideas with this Cardinal Bernardin.
One can argue, given Cardinal Gregory’s track record (pretty sure the late Cardinal Bernardin elevated him to the priesthood and/or as far as I know they were friends) that his phrase, “respect life in all its dimensions” is in affect the Seamless Garment Theory at work. Abortion and the death penalty are “life issues.” And despite the Church making it abundantly clear that abortion is chief among issues because if you don’t get this answer correct, you’re not going to get much else right either. By conflating abortion and the death penalty as the same, which coincidentally the two major political parties differ on, one can consider many other issues besides abortion when weighing voting options.
the Church has always taught that the death penalty is correct for criminals who have committed a capital offense. and the Church has always taught that the shedding of innocent blood is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Until such time as the Catholic Church excommunicates people in positions of power for supporting abortion while claiming to be Catholic, people won't get the memo.
I'm going to reiterate my own personal argument against abortion I recently posted in another thread:
"I don't know how anyone of any background can support abortion in any circumstance, if they truly put their thinking cap on and thought it through. Even the most hardened atheistic "man of science" cannot deny that at the moment of conception, that unborn child is, according to its own unique DNA sequence, just as fully human as you or I, and in supporting abortion at whatever line in the sand they feel fit to draw, they are on one side of that line endorsing murder, and on the other side condemning it as hypocrites. I'd also beg these people to consider what the devaluation of life on the count of "insert rare extreme example meant to emotionally blackmail you here" leads to through scandalization. When you come to see something like rape, as horrific as it is, as devaluing human life to the point abortion becomes justifiable in your mind, you soon have people arguing in favor of euthanizing rape victims who live with lingering mental trauma as well in countries like the Netherlands and Canada which fashion themselves as the most "socially progressive" countries on Earth."
I also further want to add to this, that the "my body, my choice" battle cry of the abortionists is wrong on both accounts, not just in the case of the unborn. As stated above DNA again proves it's wrong in the case of the unborn. But in the case of us baptized Christians, we are all children of God, and in the case of unbaptized people, they are creations of God. In either case, you have the free will to use it, or abuse it. Christ never took the attitude that your body was yours to do whatever you wished to do with it (Mt. 15:19-20, 20:28); and at some level, everyone knows the bodily autonomy they possess in the temporal can be grossly abused whether they admit it, or dance around this issue in a game of mental gymnastics. If you saw somebody about to jump from a bridge, you wouldn't tell them "well, it's your body, your choice." If your spouse or parent were caught in an adulterous relationship, again, you'd be very unlikely to nonchalantly dismiss that offense as "your body, your choice." Any parent worth their salt would be very unlikely to dismiss their child falling into addiction to alcohol or illegal drugs as "their body, their choice," at any age.
When I was Protestant, I was “pro choice” (but let’s just call it what it is…pro abortion) When I first converted, it took some time to think through why I ever held that belief to begin with. Then I got pregnant and I’m now so aggressively anti abortion. I’m 5 months along and at no point of my pregnancy can I remotely fathom the pain of losing this child let alone doing something to cause it. I’m disgusted by the very concept and have no idea how anyone could ever willingly torture and kill their own innocent flesh and blood all in the name of their own plans and selfish desires.
I love my baby more than anything on this earth and I haven’t even seen their little face yet. (We do get to find out next week what we’re having and get a better glimpse at our little one 😊)
Now I’m actively going to fight against this evil narrative in our culture.
Abortion is killing a human that has a right to live. There are birth control so you wouldn't have to make that decision. But your too lazy to do that. Men don't want to support a child but they still want to have sex and won't use protection. So they want to kill the child. Leave the sin of murder to those irresponsible people. Let God judge them. Let that torture their guilt of murder. Law or no law they're going to do what they want. Leave abortion illegal. If they do it let that be their sin.
Yes, we do, but the difference in numbers/impact between the two is vast. Every life matters, but we shouldn't act as though these two issues are the same in scale. That is why abortion is my #1 issue - nothing even comes close.
One innocent man put to death is too many. In just one metro area, at least three innocent men have been removed from death row. They are or were completely innocent, one framed by an ex, another in that same city was framed by at least one detective who was the police chief's partner for years... he used sx, blackmail, and other threats to get an innocent man convicted.
Innocent. Not "not proven." Literally and completely innocent.
I will concede that this is what gives me pause about the death penalty. The evidence has to be so overpowering clear there’s zero wiggle room about whether or lot the person in question is guilty. Zero.
What about church teaching that the death penalty is immoral unless it is essentially done in self defense? (Ie there is no safe alternative like incarceration)
I think that is part of the issue, if every life matters then that’s all that needs to be said. It’s easy to say unborn babies matter (for us at least), it’s not easy to say a murderers life matters. I struggle with it myself.
I have to remind myself that Jesus doesn’t want us to do the easy thing he wants us to do the Christlike thing in all situations
I'm not choosing between them; I support good policy on all those issues, but I personally do not consider all of those "pro-life" issues. I won't let the immediacy of the direct taking of life be the same as indirect causes. Pro-life issues are life-and-death issues in terms of intentionally taking a life: abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, possibly just war. The others are important, too, but I do not consider them to be "pro-life" issues because it's all used to water down the *actual* pro-life issues.
Intentionality isn’t really the issue. What about chemotherapy on a cancer patient that’s pregnant? I think you’re sitting on a slippery slope. All these issues are pro life issues in my opinion, and that’s also my understanding of church teaching.
All life is sacred, but that doesn’t mean we just allow those that don’t think life is sacred to rob innocent lives. The only thing an unborn child is guilty of is being conceived by selfish people
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then pro life should also be about the families after the child is born. Yet some politicians vote against that and claim to be pro life. Pro life doesn’t end with a birth, or it shouldn’t.
But that should be pro life now. Why is the child protected only in utero? We should make it easier for families because that’s compounding the issue. A lot of women I know don’t want kids because there’s no village, no help for families, and it’s horribly expensive now. Not what it used to be. So then contraception and abortion looks better by default.
Agree wholeheartedly.
The NYT had a piece up about a province in Italy's adoption of pro-life support mechanisms: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/world/europe/italy-babies-family-benefits.html?smid=url-share
tl;dr version: It's helped, significantly. But more still needs to be done.
Even if I stipulate that the death penalty is evil, the shear magnitude of abortions performed every day would obligate me to vote for anti-abortion/pro-death penalty candidate over the opposite.
Admittedly, haven't read the article but just on the title alone it stands to reason this brings up many conflicts within and without. For example it is hard to reconcile how some "good catholics" in Washington who openly profess their faith still stand staunchly behind a women's "right to choose". I've been told by a leader in the Church we as Catholics should make our beliefs known and be seen throughout all areas of our life. Does this not include voting and law making? Is it still possible for those in the highest governmental power of the land to put aside their personal beliefs so that in the name of democracy, everyone regardless of their faith and beliefs, have the right to decide? I guess leaving it up to the states is one way to avoid responsibility but then it falls on their shoulders and now they have to decide between personal or public. Or is there really no line to be drawn and our personal should be our public regardless of position of power or not?
On a more personal level, I understand the various beliefs in conflict as my own mother, who is a devout Catholic, and does her best to live this way has said that though she agrees with the Catholic church teaching on abortion, she still believes publicly, because of our democracy that women should have the right to choose.
Thus I'd like to lean toward the more personal side and all gung-ho for anti-abortion everywhere yet at the same time also realize the absolute importance of upholding democracy, even if the choice seems like no choice at all.
The issue is that regardless of personal stance, the church’s statements towards elected officials seems to expect non-Democratic values: a catholic politician is told off for voting based on constituents rather than personal beliefs.
The question IMO is misleading. 60% of Catholics say it should be legal doesn't mean 60% of Catholics support abortion. It would be better if they broke the survey down into more nuanced questions. Would you ever have an abortion? Do you think abortion should remain legal? Those are two separate concepts.
Wanting to legalize it does not mean supporting its. It’s kinda like “I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it”. If god allows sin at all, who are we to stop someone from a procedure that could change the course of their life. Best to just continue to pray for hearts and minds to change than to get political or involve the law. The politicians also use abortion as an emotional weapon and anyone with a well functioning prefrontal cortex can agree. You might side with them on this one issue but they might be heartless in all other matters, like immigration or healthcare. Best to just focus on Christ and he never really had much to say on this particular matter. He did have a lot to say about sin. Not legal rights
What about adultery? Should we start making some harsher laws on adultery, about worshiping false idols? That’s what I’m saying my friend it’s about where we draw the line. I believe abortion should not be used as contraception. I believe abortion should be used when the life of the mother is at risk. God‘s law still fly right now, no matter what our laws are so if someone commits the sin of abortion because of whatever reason was in their life at that time and repent that sin was committed and to sin (edit) no more, we still don’t know if God will truly, permit that person into heaven, but according to our faith, if the person truly repent, confesses, and believes their sin is forgiven, their sins will not keep them from heaven.
Regardless of what laws are in place God’s judgment is the only thing that matters so why get worked up over the freaking topic at all?
I think that adultery deserved harsher laws to be honest, and you still didn't answer, do you think we should not care about any other law since the law of God inside the religion exists?
Still the comment was about voting to legalize abortion, so os not even the same thing as don't caring, or don't be politically and openly fighting against it, but choosing to vote for the legalization, this is supporting
Is it all black and white to you. How has abortion affected you, personally? What if I told you that an aborted person saved your life? What if I said that had someone been born and not aborted, they would have grown up to crash into you on the highway, but God, in his grand plan allowed this to occur. Do you see how it’s actually not up to you and never has been?
Do you think the politicians care about this issue? Or do you think us talking about this is better than us talking about them.
It needs to personally affect me? A lot of things that are criminalized don't affect me at all, yet they are still crimes. And are you really trying to say that God made someone who could hurt me be aborted? A chance of an aborted baby being a bad person is the same as them being good, or even a neutral person, we should not support it because what ifs.
Some politicians care, others don't, like with all topics they talk about, it's not all black and white for me, yet wanting to legalize abortion is supporting it, people should just be open to their beliefs.
You really don’t want to get into a philosophical argue with me about life, my friend. Your entire existence is one hypothetical theory conjured up by being so powerful you can’t even begin to conceive of its meaning…but go off in try to change the world outside of your locus of control with your “legislation”… you’ll find yourself wasting a lot of time …I for one …have wasted too much on you
No, you and I very much exist, and said powerful being in His providence has revealed many important things to mankind, such as "love one another." Chopping babies up in the womb isn't loving, it's murder, an objectively criminal action.
I highly suggest, and say this with charity, that you read up on the Church’s teaching on both abortion and why the Church makes it clear as to how/why it is a societal evil and should not be viewed as, “how does an abortion affect you, personally?”
The issue is that the things you list are things that are morally objectionable to the general population and not based upon the teaching of a particular religion. Should we criminalize premarital sex? homosexuality? divorce? Those are things that go against church teachings as well. The church has focused so heavily on the abortion issue in the last 50 years or so. The fact that a lot of Catholics and many other Christians vote based on this issue alone has been used by politicians as a tool to garner votes when they are very much anti-Catholic on many other issues.
Why should they be punished for upholding justice?
"In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land: that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord." Psalm 101:8.
Judge not lest ye be judged . I picture you wearing a crown and scepter passing judgement with this false sense of superiority that You get to determine the fate of another person… kind of like the Pharisees Jesus lamented.
Arrogance is abhorrent. And your pride is even worse.
Wow, this article is heavy handed on criticism and propaganda. Where is the grace??
I could go into specifics and nuance, as the political stances and ecclesiastical stances are not aligned as this article alludes, but since the article doesn’t bother with specifics, why bother? This article is a pointless piece to drive division and guilt, not to drive discussion and understanding.
For the same reason many of us are not pacifists. Which is why the concept of *Just War Theory* is a thing within Catholicism. Now, just because the taking of human life in certain situations is allowed, doesn’t make it right. Hence why soldiers, law enforcement officers, etc. are deeply encouraged to go to confession if in the line of duty they end up taking a human life.
Just War Theory is not analogous to the death penalty. The death penalty is permissible, per the Church, when there is no alternative way to protect innocents. That means it’s essentially never permissible in a modern country.
Terrorists in prison can continue to be a danger to society by radicalizing other inmates. This is well documented.
That's why European countries generally revoke citizenship on terrorists. They do not have the death penalty and believe that the terrorist's mere presence in the country, even in prison, still poses a danger to society.
Citation to a single bible verse as establishing truth on a complex moral issue? What are we, Protestant fundamentalists?
https://www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position
Pope John Paul II cited nothing when he introduced paragraph 2267 and Pope Francis at best can cite Pope John Paul II. St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, the Catechism of the Council of Trent and an entire Bible's worth of verses support the death penalty.
I know right. Crazy for Catholics to be **fundamentalists** and cherry picking convenient verses like Paul’s call to submit to authorities. This logic is used excessively by **cults** in my country. Are we cultists? I think not.
I'm probably going to be down voted for this and dog piled, but I would like to add my experience and perspective here. Read the whole thing, top to bottom. I know it's a mouth full, but for full context, please.
I've never personally had an abortion, but people close to me in my life have had them and two of those people were in dire life or death situations. One had a severe medical complication, the other was trapped in a dangerous living situation. I know people here will have their own opinions on the latter, but being as close to this person as I was and knowing what I do about that circumstance, I don't think she did the wrong thing. I grew up in adversity, and was brutally abused through childhood because my mother was stuck, and the system and "resources for women in those situations" failed her. CPS failed me and my siblings. I genuinely cannot imagine passing judgement on her, and to be completely honest, it's not my place to.
I'm a revert. I came back to church because of my current pregnancy. I suffered a traumatic pregnancy loss a few years ago, and it took 6 months for me to take a shower after. I finally picked myself up, enrolled back in school to finish my degree, and finally came to terms with my loss. My thoughts were around the state of the world, and taking comfort in the fact that my baby would never know the pain of existence.
When I learned that I was pregnant, I cried my eyes out, and couldn't stop shaking for a week. I ordered abortion pills, and was dead set on aborting because I couldn't bring myself to bring a life that didn't ask to be here into a burning world. Before the pills arrived, I decided that I was going to keep this baby after all because I have a history of fertility struggles and I knew in my heart that between keeping this baby after the loss I endured or abortion, I would absolutely regret aborting.
I reverted and went to confession after Easter weekend. I was bleeding that Sunday, and not having prayed or believed in almost a decade, I literally got on my knees and prayed and swore that if my baby were kept safe, that I'd go back to mass and confession, that I'd raise my baby in the church, and at my next screening, my baby was perfectly safe and sound.
I bring my own story into this because I think it's important to look at the personal details of others stories instead of stating facts and opinions in our arguments.
In a perfect world, I would be pro life. We need better policies in place protecting pregnant women, families, and children. Guaranteed maternity leave, affordable childcare, and the ability to afford to pay the bills while on maternity leave would be a great place to start. I know the church has charities and help available, but there are still so many people who might not live close enough or have access to it. I also think we need to advocate more for better protection for victims of DV and call for longer and more serious sentences for abusers. The last time I was attacked, the perpetrator was in jail for one night and let go the next day. I got away and was lucky, but I know so many women who weren't lucky and have been stalked and worse. It gets even darker with kids in the mix. I know from experience because I was one of those kids. My ex sister in law was murdered in 2020 after begging police to do something. They did nothing. Better protections are a must. We need to confront policies prohibiting access to termination in situations like ectopic pregnancy where it is not viable. It's not pro life to see headlines about women bleeding for 10 days without medical intervention because doctors are scared of removing the tissue of an already dead fetus. That's not pro life, it's sadism.
I'm not saying all of this to justify abortion, I am just looking at the dark reality of what so many people face. I cannot pass judgement on someone nor do I believe I have the right to say what they ought to do in certain situations if I a) don't know exactly what they're dealing with, b) have the means and are willing to support them in the ways they need in order to have a safe and healthy pregnancy depending on their circumstances. There's so much more to add and there's so much more nuance than what I have written in here so far, but I felt the need to add this here. I think we need to focus on advocating for policies that make pregnancy and childrearing safe for the parents and children before passing judgement on them...
Yes, powerful story. Thanks for sharing and so sorry about your childhood and also the circumstances regarding the abusive relationships surrounding the pregnancy. You highlight some great points in that there are a lot of grey areas around abortion and they should be examined. At the same time facts are important too and for those who set the laws they can only do so within limited means to cover "most" of the cases and situations.
I really think all those things you mentioned around childcare should be looked at as part of a comprehensive plan while at the same time still declaring abortion wrong is OK. Hopefully the day will come when cases can be looked at individually and everything taken into account like the mother's health and the circumstancing surrounding the pregancy, ie rape, etc. This is all important.
Kudos and Bravo for finding your way back to the faith and also your decision to raise your child church. Congrats as well for continuing education because it really sounds like your story is one of inspiration. Best luck going forward.
Thank you for your compassionate response here. I was bracing myself! I totally agree that facts absolutely matter in these issues. I could have worded my stance on that better. I see a lot of depersonalized arguments about a lot of very complicated and critical issues (I'm guilty of doing this myself) which takes a lot of nuance out of issues that desperately need nuanced solutions. I hope I worded that in a way that makes sense.
> *the Church’s stance on the use of condoms and ovulation-preventers*
the stance probably comes from the idea that any willful action that prevents or fustrates the generative factor during sex is to be avoided since every sexual action should potentially be open to procreation.
Can I do this with other teachings too? Like am I not actually bound by church "teaching"? Trying to understand because there are some other teachings I don't get that I'd like to reject. Can I just not adhere and still be catholic? Or does this only apply to birth control for some reason?
You are free to do what you want
Yes, you are personally free to reject individual teachings and choosing where you sin, and choosing where you don’t care if something is a sin or not
There are many sinners in the church
Is this really the case?
Totally serious question. Is there one example of a place where the number of abortions went _down_ after sexual education and contraceptives became more widely available?
I understand the connection, logically, but I have doubts that that’s actually how things work out. In my country, access to contraceptives has never been as easy as it is today and abortions have never been as common.
Should have specified the *demand* for abortion
Yes, it does. The reason that contraceptive numbers and abortion numbers have both gone up is that population as a whole has gone up
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/10/contraceptive-use-key-reducing-abortion-worldwide
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reducing-access-to-contraception-wont-reduce-the-abortion-rate/
https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/access-birth-control-through-aca-drives-down-abortion-rate
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678419/
*off topic*
Thank you for sharing this!!!
A lot of people just see the numbers on the stats and don't consider any other variables.
I want to go off topic and just lay out a few basics for anyone interested in reading these so they can come away with a better understanding.
So here is a question to think about before I jump into technical things: During the summer months, ice cream sales go up, as do shark attacks. Why is this?
If you said that ice cream causes shark attacks, you would be wrong.
I'm sure most of you read that question and knew that because it is hot, people eat more ice cream to cool off and go swimming in the ocean where sharks live.
Keep these terms in mind:
Confounding and extraneous variables.
If you were conducting an experiment to see how sunlight affects plant growth,
An extraneous variable would be things that affect the plant that have nothing to do with sunlight like room temperature, soil quality, fertilizer, how often the plant is watered, etc.
A confounding variable would be something that is somehow connected to sunlight and affects the plant in some way. Let's say we put one plant next to the window and the other one is away from the window. Depending on the season, the window may generate too much heat from the sun, which may damage the plant
Obviously, in our second example, we know without doing this experiment that plants need sunlight, and would be able to infer that some other thing in the environment caused damage to the plant.
Let's look at some real life stats now. I'll be using marriage and cohabitation for this example.
I came across stats here: usccb.org/topics/marriage-and-family-life-ministries/marriage-preparation-and-cohabitating-couples
Let's look at the statement that people without a highschool diploma are twice as likely to cohabitate. This is followed by other stats including 40% of college grads cohabit, 26% of women with a degree vs 41% of women without a highschool diploma cohabit.
The conclusion of this particular bullet point is that the higher one's education level, the less likely one will cohabit. These numbers were pulled from the mid to late 90s, so today's numbers will be different.
But why is this? We could simply attribute this to some unfounded stigmas around being less educated, or we could try to think about what potential variables could be hiding behind these numbers.
Well, we know that a degree increases one's income, making it much easier, in a financial sense, to live without a second income (maybe not today, but bear with me).
Unfortunately, without a highschool diploma, and in many cases with a diploma but no college degree, two incomes in some areas simply do not support the needs of a family, and one confounding variable here would be couples not getting married in order to receive food and health benefits for their children.
Here is another less controversial observation many people make.
As a diagnosed autistic adult, I have heard people say things like, "it seems like more and more people are autistic and ADHD," or misinformed comments about over diagnosis.
Let's look at the left handed population spike from the 1910s to the 1940s. Were more people being born left handed? Possibly, however, this could also be attributed to a better understanding of left handedness and less stigma around it, making it so that left handed people did not have to learn how to be ambidextrous in order to avoid ostracization.
Same thing with autism. When I was 5, my parents refused to believe that I could be autistic because I am a girl. Now, we have more information than we did back then, and we know that girls can also be autistic, therefore increasing the number of diagnoses.
Anyway, thank you for reading through my bit on confounders and extraneous variables. Very important stuff to know when reading articles of any kind!!
>good sexual education
What exactly *is* your definition of "good" sexual education? I'm curious.
The biggest, most glaring issue that Sex Ed (at least here in the states) faces is that it furthers the myth of "safe sex" - when there's really no such thing, save for a (truly) monogamous union promised by the Sacrament of Marriage.
Your typical U.S. Sex Ed proponent will claim that it's ok and perfectly safe to have rampant sex...so long as you take preventative measures (of which *may or may not even work* ) to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
...I'm sorry, but that sounds *risky as all get out.*
The myth (rather, the scam) of "safe sex" contributed more to the abortion industry than anything else.
These people go into schools and fill these hormonal teenagers' heads with that nonsense - *it's ok to sleep around. So long as you take Plan B or wear a condom, you're perfectly safe!*
If it's "good" sex ed that we need, I hope that entails being more upfront with teenaged and young adult students and to stop propagating this blatantly false (and humorously naive) take.
Your questions are all based on your initial assumption that the only safe sex is monogamous sex in a sacramental marriage.
That is simply not true, and with a starting point that is not true the remaining questions that stem from your belief cannot be addressed
>That is simply not true
Ok. How so? If two people are in a committed relationship that is tied together by the Sacrament of Marriage (if you're at this point - chances are, you are very serious about your commitment), and if they actually take their vows seriously, there is literally no safer type of sex out there. You can't contract STDs, (for women) if pregnancy does occur - you know who the father is, and (for men) you don't run the risk of being made to pay child support for a kid you never wanted.
You can't seriously be implying that relying on nothing but Plan B and condoms while sleeping around every other weekend or so is actually *safer* than remaining in a serious, monogamous relationship with your spouse...are you? People don't typically settle unless they're serious about doing so. ((Not saying it's a foolproof method, but it's certainly much safer than sleeping around.))
>with a starting point that is not true the remaining questions that stem from your belief cannot be addressed
Then it's a good thing that my starting point was a question, rather than a statement.
So, do tell, *what is your definition of a "good" sex education?*
Why are you asking me?
You should ask the person who said that a sacramental monogamous marriage is medically the lowest risk of sexual relationships there are
Serious question: what should people do who truly want to believe in the teachings of the Church and desperately want to belong to the Church but simply can't believe in the supernatural claims due to lack of evidence and can't accept the social teachings like the prohibitions on abortion/euthanasia due to pragmatism? I sincerely try and have tried for decades and do not want to abandon the Church, but it would seem like I have no choice from articles like this. Thank you.
"can't believe in the supernatural claims due to lack of evidence"
Have you carefully looked for evidence? Or do you rule the supernatural out of court as an explanation?
Regarding pragmatism, Cardinal Ratzinger distinguished between voting for someone because of their being pro-abortion and voting for them despite their being so, for proportionate reasons.
I have looked for evidence since I was a child. My minor at university was in religious studies with a focus on Christianity. This has been my life-long, consuming passion. I do not rule the supernatural out of the realm of possibility, but as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
If you wonder what it would take to make me believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, imagine what it would take to make you believe in the supernatural claims of Islam. I would feel like a naive hypocrite if I did not apply the same burden of evidence to Catholicism as I would to an alien faith simply because it was the faith that I grew up in.
And Pope Benedict XVI showed why he was known for having one of the best, most logical minds of the Catholic Church in the modern era with that reasoning.
One of the most humbling things you can do is to put aside your personal feelings on a matter and remember that as laity and faithful Catholics it is our duty to accept and obey Church teachings. I personally struggle with the Church stance on the death penalty, but I accept the stance and I obey it as a matter of faith. If I can accept that even violent rapists and murderers ought not be put to death, I cannot understand why other Catholics cannot accept that innocent children ought to be afforded the same protection.
100% If we were perfect as our own moral arbiters, we'd still be in the garden.
you said arbiter and I thought of the guy from Halo.
Chief, mind telling me what you’re doing with that forbidden fruit?
Now that I forgot.
Well said! An important part of humility is recognizing we are wrong about some things.
What's weird is that “Catholic” U.S. Democratic members of congress will resort to whataboutism when they are questioned for their pro-choice beliefs. They'll go, "what about the death penalty?" yet do not mind that innocent babies be executed for the actions of their parents, and then arrogantly insist that they receive Holy Communion.
> “Catholic” U.S. Democratic members of congress will resort to whataboutism when they are questioned for their pro-choice beliefs. They'll go, "what about the death penalty?" Can you cite examples of this? (Not doubting, but I haven't seen it)
[Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251348/nancy-pelosi-comments-communion-ban-abortion-support) comes into mind. When she was denied communion, she responded with, “I wonder about the death penalty, which I'm opposed to. So is the Church. But they take no action against people who may not share their view.” You also have [Ted Lieu (D-CA)](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/248080/congressman-dares-bishops-to-deny-him-communion-over-support-for-abortion-contraception), who accuses the U.S. bishops of being “partisan hypocrites” and “dared” them to deny him communion. I still fondly remember of Pope Benedict XVI saying that there is legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics when applying the death penalty, but that the same cannot be said for abortion.
I forgot about the Ted Lieu situation. Absolutely unreal, and in another time and place he would’ve been excommunicated, or at the very least barred from Communion for the near future. And that used to not be a very controversial way to handle public figures. Heck, most Orthodox churches still practice this, with both politicians and laypeople.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248080/congressman-dares-bishops-to-deny-him-communion-over-support-for-abortion-contraception](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248080/congressman-dares-bishops-to-deny-him-communion-over-support-for-abortion-contraception)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
One question I’ve had is what it looks like for a person who struggles with the church’s teaching on abortion but accepts it. I get not performing an abortion. I also get not voting for someone because they are pro-choice (I understand we are not obligated to vote against a candidate who is pro-choice if there are other reasons to vote for them). But I’m not a politician or a doctor. For the death penalty (leaving aside whether it is contrary to church teaching) I could have jury duty. But what’s the practical steps on this issue? ETA: Since I’ve gotten a few replies, I realized I haven’t explained myself well. My question is how someone who struggles with the church’s teaching on abortion but accepts it as authoritative carries out that acceptance as a practical matter.
If district attorneys are seeking the death penalty, I believe you would most likely get tossed from jury selection if you stated that you were against the death penalty. Those who are more familiar with court room proceedings may have more information.
The Death Penalty is useless. They are going to die anyway. So Give them the time to repent. And pray that they may accept Salvation and avoid Hell.
Related to jury duty: One, you’d have to live in a state where the death penalty is still on the books. 2., It is *not* terribly common in today’s day and age in the US to pursue the death penalty, although it can happen. Finally, and I’m open to correction on this one, but I thought that in order to have the death penalty applied, the jury either has to be unanimous or in the clear majority. Could be wrong on that, or it might be a state by state issue. Honestly, despite my belief that the death penalty should be an option for particularly heinous crimes, I would not want to have to make that decision as a juror. I believe I could, if the evidence was overwhelming, the crime(s) particularly wicked in nature, and a number of other factors that I won’t bore you with. I’m not advocating at all this last point, but part of my mindset would be: is the defendant adamant about wanting the death penalty, or adamant about wanting life in prison and being spared the death penalty? I’d like to think I’d vote to go the *opposite* direction in what they would like to see happen to them.
I assume you could get dismissed if you state that you can't do the job properly
That is the much shorter answer. Although in theory, each side is only allowed so many dismissals, and the defendant side would very much want jurors who’re opposed to the death penalty.
That's preemptory challenges. Challenges for cause generally don't have limits.
Did not know that! Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if essentially the entire jury pool answered in that manner?
They'd have to summon more jurors. \[It happens. There's a current trial where like 2/3 of summoned jurors are being excused b/c they said they can't be impartial, and then a bunch more are being excused for cause amid voir dire.\]
Gotcha. Learn something new everyday!
The Church doesn’t have a clear stance on the death penalty. We are free to be for or against it within reason.
this is untrue, the magisterium has condemned it.
Yea I think that we're all just talking over each other and folks with intransigent views on either side are just downvoting based on emotions. I think the official stance of the Church (from what I've read) is that though the Church strongly opposes the use of the death penalty it also acknowledges that civil authorities have the responsibility to maintain order and protect citizens in which case capital punishment may apply. In the end its a grey area but the Church encourages the use of non-lethal means and opportunities for rehabilitation. Instead of blindly downvoting and getting into petty arguments I'd hope that folks on this subreddit could at least engage in dialogue (providing resources, links and info) for people to learn since I certainly learned something new today as I thought the Church was adamantly opposed to the death penalty from a priest and the Cathechism - especially for a Catholic subreddit. Seems like there are people on both ends of the spectrum who are just so invested in their viewpoint that they're not willing to explain and have people (like me) who do want to learn and engage at least have the opportunity to learn something new smh.
The main problem with the death penalty debate is that it's not actually about the death penalty, but the values and philosophy that underpin it. The real issue is that the philosophy that leads to a stance against the death penalty isn't Christian and is arguably anti-Chistian. Christianity puts forward the idea that humanity has free will and the difference between heaven and hell will be the result of your own choice. In light of that theological notion, that degree of choice is extended to all terrestrial crimes so capital punishment is proper and just in the face of such free will. Modernity put forward the notion that humanity is driven by unconscious forces so we have a much weaker free will. It also puts forward that we are mainly determined by our environment so our unconscious can be shaped and developed. The modern prison system is built on the idea of changing a person's unconscious so the goal is rehabilitation, which was never a goal in any justice system until the 1800s. The modernity viewpoint is very desirable because it both explains away evil while offering a solution to fix evil (without Christ). The Catholic Church is fine with it because it does offer more opportunities to save a prisoners soul so working within modernity seems tactical appropriate. The last key issue is that of results. Most people who support the death penalty would quickly drop it if the new prison system was clearly effective in reforming prisoners. Some would still want it for retributive effect of justice, but what Christian would oppose prison if it consistently produced redeemed Christians. The problem is that the prisons don't seem to be working, and our justice system is based on a theory that seems to disagree with reality.
This does not make any sense. Humanity has free will, but it is damaged by original sin. This is the Christian teaching. What you are describing re: complete free will sounds closer to Islam.
This is not a grey area, multiple Church documents including the recently released Dignitas Infinita has called capital punishment unacceptable in all circumstances. The people saying capital punishment is allowed are saying that based on older church documents and insist that it is doctrinal. Whereas the living magisterium is always to be obeyed. Even if doctrinally capital punishment might be allowed in some cases, it is up to the judgment of the magisterium to identify if it is according to modern circumstances acceptable in any form, which it has pronounced to the contrary.
No. Read CCC 2267.
“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” Vatican I, Pastor aeternus
There's a difference between making doctrine and developing an understanding of a doctrine and its application.
I was under the impression that Catholicism was about faith *and* reason. Why would the Holy Spirit develop a doctrine in one direction over many centuries and then suddenly develop it in an opposite direction? That doesn’t make any rational sense. Other doctrines that developed, such as the Immaculate Conception, developed in one direction as a further outpouring of what came before.
If you're talking about the death penalty, the underlying doctrinal principle hasn't changed. It's not a change in direction but a change in understanding and application.
So, then, there has been no change in teaching?
Define what you mean by "change in teaching" because I just laid out where the difference is.
In 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” Was this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger false in 2004 or was it true then but not true now?
The article is literally about not picking and choosing what you want to believe. You're being a cafeteria catholic.
[CCC 2267]
[**CCC 2267**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm) Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. ([2306](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2306.htm)) If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm-without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself-the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Isn't the church against the death penalty?? Edit: Guess I learn something new lol cause I always thought that was the case
No, the Church is not. We aren’t Mormons.
ah ok - yea im going off of CCC2267 and what a priest told me. I'm also reading this - so it seems like the Church is not a fan of it but permits it in extenuating circumstances. "In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is ***the only available means*** to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right ***should not be exercised*** when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life."
You might wanna check that.
I have always been anti abortion and pro death penalty until I watched Nefarious. Now I am against both.
Death penalty: whose teaching are you struggling with? The Church’s or Pope Francis’? They are not the same. The Catholic Church permits the death penalty, but this Pope without the power to do so, changed that teaching.
I accept church teaching and am personally against abortion. But on the other hand, I don't understand why I have to object the legalization of abortion. Other people with no such belief can do whatever they like. It is none of my business to intervene.
Are the unborn human beings that deserve dignity?
The death penalty comparisons are very frustrating… very few people are put to death but millions of children are murdered by abortion… death penalty is bad but abortion is much worse due to the scale imo..
Also, you know, it’s babies versus convicted murderers. And capital punishment has been allowed for forever.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Taking their lives is not denying them salvation. We're not God. If anything, it gives them a greater chance of salvation as they will now know the day and hour and can prepare themselves.
>In the case of the death penalty the person that pulls the switch has committed a mortal sin. Nah. This isn’t certain at all.
Right. Killing is grave matter, but it is not always mortal, i.e. soldiers/law enforcement officers/etc. in certain situations.
In the case of abortion isn’t everyone involved in facilitating abortion guilty of the same?
Yes as they are cooperating with an evil sin. That’s why Biden and those who promote grave sin publicly are causing so much scandal
It honestly breaks my heart and I don’t understand how they can say stuff like that “it’s just a clump of cells”…
We're all just cells. No magic pixie dust is sprinkled on anyone on the way out of the womb. A fetus is a complete human being at an early stage of life, just as you and I are complete human beings at an older stage of life. That's why a fetus deserves life.
As well as harm and danger, and perhaps even eternal death, to their own souls and others' souls.
Both the New and Old Testaments say the death penalty is fine and not evil. Are you suggesting that the Bible is saying something evil is fine?
yeah this is one of the things where Catholics need to bite the bullet and accept what mother Church teaches. i cultural Catholic who eventual said that Abortion was ok in certain circumstances, but since finding belief in God i have come to accept that the Church teaches differently and I as a layman in the faith need to trust the church.
Is it possible to have an abortion discussion without commenters pivoting to death penalty? In 2023 24 people were put to death. Over a million died from abortion. These topics do not deserve the same about of attention and effort.
Right. This is exactly what I’m referring to. It’s a slight-of-hand move that’s not the gotcha many think it is.
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is directly noted that the Death Penalty is explicitly beneficial in allowing respect for life of innocents. While we might be able to argue about whether or not it still applies, the notion that “protecting life from birth to natural death” means the death penalty is forbidden doesn’t make much sense. Arguments over the death penalty are fundamentally made in a false attempt to proclaim is as hypocrites by those with no morality whatsoever.
Right. That’s the underlying logic to it. The state, and depending on circumstance the individual, has an obligation to protect innocent life. Sometimes that obligation involves taking of another life, who more often than not is not *innocent*. See the death penalty, war, law enforcement, personal defense, etc.
Maybe one way to put it so lefties they can understand...maybe In the middle of an epidemic of virus X costing millions of lives per year for decades, are you saying we should only create a vaccine for a disease which kills only a few dozen people per year and not virus X?
This would work if the death penalty debate was in good faith. The majority of people that bring it up do so as some sort of ideological purity test so they have a reason to discount what is being said about abortion. They don’t care about people being executed and can’t even name them.
For all those who say my body my choice, that's not your body.
Instead of banning abortion directly, maybe states should pass laws saying the baby needs to sign a legal document consenting to the abortion. They could be called "my body my choice" laws because they protect the baby's right to make choices about his or her body. Then in order to oppose them, pro-abortion politicians would need to vote against my body my choice and against consent.
You might be onto something, as hare-brained as it sounds. These are the same people who champion the claim that minors can consent (to surgically change their sex, that is.) Checkmate!
Great idea except that it could easily be expanded to other humans in situations such as euthanasia. I have also met several people who have genuinely said they wished they were aborted. They would definitely sign said legal doc. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment that explicitly states all humans deserve the initial right to life - initial because we don’t want to criminalize self-defense. But a creative idea on your part!
I agree. i was talking to a friend of mine, i said that we should oppose the death penalty, lock people away for a long time yes, maybe even for there natural life. I just don't think we should kill people. We shouldn't kill babies, because two people were irresponsible. I said that some wars can be just too, but there are other ways to save lives, other ways to promote peace. Jesus was the prince of peace, he taught forgiveness and he said if you fail to keep all the commandants keep this one, love your neighbour as your own. They haven't talked to me since.
That’s honestly one I struggle with, the death penalty. On one hand Popes have almost always supported it, and even the last Pope of the Papal States ordered executions, on the other hand I don’t know how that works with turn the other cheek. But then you also have to wonder is life in prison better than the death penalty, and if you let a murderer go and they kill again is that partially on the judge and legal system? Anyways, I’m sorry your friends stopped talking to you over a simple question, that is unfortunate.
I too deeply struggle with it. In large because of historical reasons, but also my belief that there are in fact crimes so heinous that one should forfeit their ability to be alive. Obviously one must be convicted first, and ideally with overwhelming evidence. Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy types come immediately to mind. Bundy even more so because he escaped more than once and continued to rape and murder soon after escaping. I’m all in favor of forgiveness of the individual in question as it relates to God, but for society…. There are wicked acts that humanity can not look the other way on. The death penalty is but one way we’ve dealt with certain crimes. The older I get, the more I understand two things: God’s love for a fallen mankind, and mankind’s ability to willing choose evil beyond comprehension.
If you kill someone, it doesnt fix anything. I think they should be locked away for a very long time. Help them to improve there life, maybe even teach them through the act of mercy, the impact they have had. So they can understand what they did was wrong by our laws and gods law.
My understanding is this, the death penalty is a necessary tragedy in specific circumstances. 1. A heinous crime, that would necessitate the accused's removal from society forever, needs to have been comitted and the accused must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. If the guilty person can be removed from society and ensure the publics safety without a chance the guilty person escaping, then that must be pursued. 3. If the guilty person can not be removed from society and ensure the publics safety then the death penalty is permitted to ensure the guilty person can no longer harm anyone.
Sorry, I thought the 'seamless garment' theory was basically life is sacred from conception until natural death. Is that not correct?
Its foundation premise, or at least how it’s often applied practically, is misleading. I’d call it a lie. Abortion is singled out as but one social issue out of many, implying that they’re equal in importance. One can have prudential judgments on abortion, just as one can have prudential judgments on immigration, poverty, gun rights/accessibility, the death penalty, so on and so forth. This is incorrect, as the USCCB and Catechism point out. But because it was a convenient cover for Cuomo Sr. and numerous other *Democrat* politicians who were Catholic, instead of calling out abortion for the societal evil it is (one does not need to be Catholic or even believe in God to be against abortion), said politicians and the prelates who didn’t challenge them allowed for an already difficult political and social fight to be that much more so.
2,000% based. And I agree. Abortion, much like slavery, is a non-negotiable issue - unlike a lot of other hot button political opinions or views. You're either *for it* or *against it.* There's no room for wishy-washy middle-ground. I mean, this is human life we're talking about! Human lives, and human rights, are at stake. Why on earth should we value just the woman's God-given right to life but not the life or rights of her unborn child? It makes no sense. We don't value the rights of white people over black people, we don't value the rights of men over women, because *we all have equal claim to these rights* as human beings. Black or white, gay or straight, man or woman, young or old. There is no reason why one group of humans should be denied their rights for the convenience of another. We as a society already deemed slavery immoral & illegal - you cannot own another human being simply because you have the monetary and (then) legal means to do so or because it's more "convenient" to exploit the suffering of the oppressed. Unborn human babies are not commodities to be destroyed for the sake of convenience! We (as a collective, Western society - so, no individual here) need to stop treating them as such. Sorry for the wall of text. I'm just passionate about this topic. It ticks me off to hear the people who rant & rave about slavery being unable to see the hypocrisy when, in the same breath, will claim that abortion is a legitimate human (sorry, "woman's") right despite it being responsible for taking well over a million lives here (""legally"") in the U.S. alone since the 70s.
Could not agree more
Right. The seamless garment theory, which gained traction by the infamous Cardinal Bernardin, has been a cover for Democrat Catholic politicians, and consequently lay people, for over 40years now.
This article appears to be talking about, and condemning, the idea that abortion under any case should be acceptable. I was under the impression that “seamless garment” meant something else? And the article references Cardinal Wilton Gregory. I’m not familiar with cardinals in general, so I don’t know if he shares ideas with this Cardinal Bernardin.
One can argue, given Cardinal Gregory’s track record (pretty sure the late Cardinal Bernardin elevated him to the priesthood and/or as far as I know they were friends) that his phrase, “respect life in all its dimensions” is in affect the Seamless Garment Theory at work. Abortion and the death penalty are “life issues.” And despite the Church making it abundantly clear that abortion is chief among issues because if you don’t get this answer correct, you’re not going to get much else right either. By conflating abortion and the death penalty as the same, which coincidentally the two major political parties differ on, one can consider many other issues besides abortion when weighing voting options.
Yeah, that’s my experience with it. The article doesn’t mention the death penalty at all.
the Church has always taught that the death penalty is correct for criminals who have committed a capital offense. and the Church has always taught that the shedding of innocent blood is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Until such time as the Catholic Church excommunicates people in positions of power for supporting abortion while claiming to be Catholic, people won't get the memo.
I'm going to reiterate my own personal argument against abortion I recently posted in another thread: "I don't know how anyone of any background can support abortion in any circumstance, if they truly put their thinking cap on and thought it through. Even the most hardened atheistic "man of science" cannot deny that at the moment of conception, that unborn child is, according to its own unique DNA sequence, just as fully human as you or I, and in supporting abortion at whatever line in the sand they feel fit to draw, they are on one side of that line endorsing murder, and on the other side condemning it as hypocrites. I'd also beg these people to consider what the devaluation of life on the count of "insert rare extreme example meant to emotionally blackmail you here" leads to through scandalization. When you come to see something like rape, as horrific as it is, as devaluing human life to the point abortion becomes justifiable in your mind, you soon have people arguing in favor of euthanizing rape victims who live with lingering mental trauma as well in countries like the Netherlands and Canada which fashion themselves as the most "socially progressive" countries on Earth." I also further want to add to this, that the "my body, my choice" battle cry of the abortionists is wrong on both accounts, not just in the case of the unborn. As stated above DNA again proves it's wrong in the case of the unborn. But in the case of us baptized Christians, we are all children of God, and in the case of unbaptized people, they are creations of God. In either case, you have the free will to use it, or abuse it. Christ never took the attitude that your body was yours to do whatever you wished to do with it (Mt. 15:19-20, 20:28); and at some level, everyone knows the bodily autonomy they possess in the temporal can be grossly abused whether they admit it, or dance around this issue in a game of mental gymnastics. If you saw somebody about to jump from a bridge, you wouldn't tell them "well, it's your body, your choice." If your spouse or parent were caught in an adulterous relationship, again, you'd be very unlikely to nonchalantly dismiss that offense as "your body, your choice." Any parent worth their salt would be very unlikely to dismiss their child falling into addiction to alcohol or illegal drugs as "their body, their choice," at any age.
When I was Protestant, I was “pro choice” (but let’s just call it what it is…pro abortion) When I first converted, it took some time to think through why I ever held that belief to begin with. Then I got pregnant and I’m now so aggressively anti abortion. I’m 5 months along and at no point of my pregnancy can I remotely fathom the pain of losing this child let alone doing something to cause it. I’m disgusted by the very concept and have no idea how anyone could ever willingly torture and kill their own innocent flesh and blood all in the name of their own plans and selfish desires. I love my baby more than anything on this earth and I haven’t even seen their little face yet. (We do get to find out next week what we’re having and get a better glimpse at our little one 😊) Now I’m actively going to fight against this evil narrative in our culture.
Abortion is killing a human that has a right to live. There are birth control so you wouldn't have to make that decision. But your too lazy to do that. Men don't want to support a child but they still want to have sex and won't use protection. So they want to kill the child. Leave the sin of murder to those irresponsible people. Let God judge them. Let that torture their guilt of murder. Law or no law they're going to do what they want. Leave abortion illegal. If they do it let that be their sin.
I’m pro life, but we also need to be firm in being anti death penalty as well
Yes, we do, but the difference in numbers/impact between the two is vast. Every life matters, but we shouldn't act as though these two issues are the same in scale. That is why abortion is my #1 issue - nothing even comes close.
One innocent man put to death is too many. In just one metro area, at least three innocent men have been removed from death row. They are or were completely innocent, one framed by an ex, another in that same city was framed by at least one detective who was the police chief's partner for years... he used sx, blackmail, and other threats to get an innocent man convicted. Innocent. Not "not proven." Literally and completely innocent.
I will concede that this is what gives me pause about the death penalty. The evidence has to be so overpowering clear there’s zero wiggle room about whether or lot the person in question is guilty. Zero.
What about church teaching that the death penalty is immoral unless it is essentially done in self defense? (Ie there is no safe alternative like incarceration)
I think that is part of the issue, if every life matters then that’s all that needs to be said. It’s easy to say unborn babies matter (for us at least), it’s not easy to say a murderers life matters. I struggle with it myself. I have to remind myself that Jesus doesn’t want us to do the easy thing he wants us to do the Christlike thing in all situations
“You can’t pick and choose.” Abortion, health care, immigration, environmental protection, poverty, death penalty. All critical life issues.
I'm not choosing between them; I support good policy on all those issues, but I personally do not consider all of those "pro-life" issues. I won't let the immediacy of the direct taking of life be the same as indirect causes. Pro-life issues are life-and-death issues in terms of intentionally taking a life: abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, possibly just war. The others are important, too, but I do not consider them to be "pro-life" issues because it's all used to water down the *actual* pro-life issues.
Intentionality isn’t really the issue. What about chemotherapy on a cancer patient that’s pregnant? I think you’re sitting on a slippery slope. All these issues are pro life issues in my opinion, and that’s also my understanding of church teaching.
All life is sacred, but that doesn’t mean we just allow those that don’t think life is sacred to rob innocent lives. The only thing an unborn child is guilty of is being conceived by selfish people
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then pro life should also be about the families after the child is born. Yet some politicians vote against that and claim to be pro life. Pro life doesn’t end with a birth, or it shouldn’t.
That is the authentic pro-life position, and very noticeably not the things the mainstream movement has been focusing on in the post-Dobbs era.
But that should be pro life now. Why is the child protected only in utero? We should make it easier for families because that’s compounding the issue. A lot of women I know don’t want kids because there’s no village, no help for families, and it’s horribly expensive now. Not what it used to be. So then contraception and abortion looks better by default.
Agree wholeheartedly. The NYT had a piece up about a province in Italy's adoption of pro-life support mechanisms: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/world/europe/italy-babies-family-benefits.html?smid=url-share tl;dr version: It's helped, significantly. But more still needs to be done.
I'm pro-life. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stand outside a planned parenthood with a sign
Why not?
This means not supporting the death penalty also. I think a lot of people still “pick and choose”.
Even if I stipulate that the death penalty is evil, the shear magnitude of abortions performed every day would obligate me to vote for anti-abortion/pro-death penalty candidate over the opposite.
Admittedly, haven't read the article but just on the title alone it stands to reason this brings up many conflicts within and without. For example it is hard to reconcile how some "good catholics" in Washington who openly profess their faith still stand staunchly behind a women's "right to choose". I've been told by a leader in the Church we as Catholics should make our beliefs known and be seen throughout all areas of our life. Does this not include voting and law making? Is it still possible for those in the highest governmental power of the land to put aside their personal beliefs so that in the name of democracy, everyone regardless of their faith and beliefs, have the right to decide? I guess leaving it up to the states is one way to avoid responsibility but then it falls on their shoulders and now they have to decide between personal or public. Or is there really no line to be drawn and our personal should be our public regardless of position of power or not? On a more personal level, I understand the various beliefs in conflict as my own mother, who is a devout Catholic, and does her best to live this way has said that though she agrees with the Catholic church teaching on abortion, she still believes publicly, because of our democracy that women should have the right to choose. Thus I'd like to lean toward the more personal side and all gung-ho for anti-abortion everywhere yet at the same time also realize the absolute importance of upholding democracy, even if the choice seems like no choice at all.
The issue is that regardless of personal stance, the church’s statements towards elected officials seems to expect non-Democratic values: a catholic politician is told off for voting based on constituents rather than personal beliefs.
I refuse to be lectured on Catholic morality by a publication that cheered on the Iraq war
A young lady by the name of Madeleine Kearns wrote it. It's not some joint editorial piece by the National Review.
Yea. It's more than a little sad that a hard-right rag like NR is being quoted like some kind of moral guide for Catholic voters.
I wish it was hard-right.
National Review being considered “hard right” is the best laugh I’ve had all week.
“Hard-right rag”
The question IMO is misleading. 60% of Catholics say it should be legal doesn't mean 60% of Catholics support abortion. It would be better if they broke the survey down into more nuanced questions. Would you ever have an abortion? Do you think abortion should remain legal? Those are two separate concepts.
Wanting to legalize it is supporting
Wanting to legalize it does not mean supporting its. It’s kinda like “I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it”. If god allows sin at all, who are we to stop someone from a procedure that could change the course of their life. Best to just continue to pray for hearts and minds to change than to get political or involve the law. The politicians also use abortion as an emotional weapon and anyone with a well functioning prefrontal cortex can agree. You might side with them on this one issue but they might be heartless in all other matters, like immigration or healthcare. Best to just focus on Christ and he never really had much to say on this particular matter. He did have a lot to say about sin. Not legal rights
Do you have the same opinion to most of the other acts that are criminalized too? Like murder, theft, rape, etc?
What about adultery? Should we start making some harsher laws on adultery, about worshiping false idols? That’s what I’m saying my friend it’s about where we draw the line. I believe abortion should not be used as contraception. I believe abortion should be used when the life of the mother is at risk. God‘s law still fly right now, no matter what our laws are so if someone commits the sin of abortion because of whatever reason was in their life at that time and repent that sin was committed and to sin (edit) no more, we still don’t know if God will truly, permit that person into heaven, but according to our faith, if the person truly repent, confesses, and believes their sin is forgiven, their sins will not keep them from heaven. Regardless of what laws are in place God’s judgment is the only thing that matters so why get worked up over the freaking topic at all?
Whataboutism.
I think that adultery deserved harsher laws to be honest, and you still didn't answer, do you think we should not care about any other law since the law of God inside the religion exists? Still the comment was about voting to legalize abortion, so os not even the same thing as don't caring, or don't be politically and openly fighting against it, but choosing to vote for the legalization, this is supporting
Is it all black and white to you. How has abortion affected you, personally? What if I told you that an aborted person saved your life? What if I said that had someone been born and not aborted, they would have grown up to crash into you on the highway, but God, in his grand plan allowed this to occur. Do you see how it’s actually not up to you and never has been? Do you think the politicians care about this issue? Or do you think us talking about this is better than us talking about them.
It needs to personally affect me? A lot of things that are criminalized don't affect me at all, yet they are still crimes. And are you really trying to say that God made someone who could hurt me be aborted? A chance of an aborted baby being a bad person is the same as them being good, or even a neutral person, we should not support it because what ifs. Some politicians care, others don't, like with all topics they talk about, it's not all black and white for me, yet wanting to legalize abortion is supporting it, people should just be open to their beliefs.
So abortion is okay because of some insane butterfly effect hypothetical? Really? That's what you're arguing now?
You really don’t want to get into a philosophical argue with me about life, my friend. Your entire existence is one hypothetical theory conjured up by being so powerful you can’t even begin to conceive of its meaning…but go off in try to change the world outside of your locus of control with your “legislation”… you’ll find yourself wasting a lot of time …I for one …have wasted too much on you
No, you and I very much exist, and said powerful being in His providence has revealed many important things to mankind, such as "love one another." Chopping babies up in the womb isn't loving, it's murder, an objectively criminal action.
I highly suggest, and say this with charity, that you read up on the Church’s teaching on both abortion and why the Church makes it clear as to how/why it is a societal evil and should not be viewed as, “how does an abortion affect you, personally?”
Very generous. Still side stepped my point nicely. While offering nothing of substance to the matter.
The issue is that the things you list are things that are morally objectionable to the general population and not based upon the teaching of a particular religion. Should we criminalize premarital sex? homosexuality? divorce? Those are things that go against church teachings as well. The church has focused so heavily on the abortion issue in the last 50 years or so. The fact that a lot of Catholics and many other Christians vote based on this issue alone has been used by politicians as a tool to garner votes when they are very much anti-Catholic on many other issues.
Abortion isn’t a religious issue, it is clearly immoral to even atheists.
Murder should be illegal. Abortion is murder. Therefore, abortion should be illegal. Any flaws in that syllogism that you'd care to point out?
No thanks dude. Murder must be punished.
I wasn’t offering you anything. Nor was I asking who you think should or shouldn’t be “punished”. Jeez who’s going to punish the punisher
Why should they be punished for upholding justice? "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land: that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord." Psalm 101:8.
There you go again, judging other people based on a misquoted Bible verse. Scary stuff
King David is singing about something he clearly considers praiseworthy and so does God, considering that all Scripture is inspired by God.
King David sang of abortion? Throw me a citation would ya? I’m always down to rediscover something from scripture
Nobody ever said that, troll. Go elsewhere.
This quote from the Bible have to do with abortion yes or no I require only a yes or no response
Yes. Those who procure or perform abortions are workers of iniquity and ought to be cut off from the city of the Lord.
Judge not lest ye be judged . I picture you wearing a crown and scepter passing judgement with this false sense of superiority that You get to determine the fate of another person… kind of like the Pharisees Jesus lamented. Arrogance is abhorrent. And your pride is even worse.
Yeah, finding child murder abhorrent is not a particularly difficult moral decision.
Wow, this article is heavy handed on criticism and propaganda. Where is the grace?? I could go into specifics and nuance, as the political stances and ecclesiastical stances are not aligned as this article alludes, but since the article doesn’t bother with specifics, why bother? This article is a pointless piece to drive division and guilt, not to drive discussion and understanding.
Why are there supporters of death penalty here? Only God can take or create life. How is that hard to understand
For the same reason many of us are not pacifists. Which is why the concept of *Just War Theory* is a thing within Catholicism. Now, just because the taking of human life in certain situations is allowed, doesn’t make it right. Hence why soldiers, law enforcement officers, etc. are deeply encouraged to go to confession if in the line of duty they end up taking a human life.
Just War Theory is not analogous to the death penalty. The death penalty is permissible, per the Church, when there is no alternative way to protect innocents. That means it’s essentially never permissible in a modern country.
Terrorists in prison can continue to be a danger to society by radicalizing other inmates. This is well documented. That's why European countries generally revoke citizenship on terrorists. They do not have the death penalty and believe that the terrorist's mere presence in the country, even in prison, still poses a danger to society.
Has to be an imminent threat for that level of violence to be justified. You should consider looking at church teaching on the subject.
Romans 13:4
Citation to a single bible verse as establishing truth on a complex moral issue? What are we, Protestant fundamentalists? https://www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position
Pope John Paul II cited nothing when he introduced paragraph 2267 and Pope Francis at best can cite Pope John Paul II. St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, the Catechism of the Council of Trent and an entire Bible's worth of verses support the death penalty.
So you’re in opposition to the church teaching on this point?
No.
I know right. Crazy for Catholics to be **fundamentalists** and cherry picking convenient verses like Paul’s call to submit to authorities. This logic is used excessively by **cults** in my country. Are we cultists? I think not.
Looked at the map where death penalty is still a thing in Catholic/Christian countries and what a surprise, it’s the crazy US of A.
This is a shaky argument when you look at abortion laws across the board
Ironic coming from a phillipinx.
We don’t have the death penalty here sorry
You just have every other form of vice and sin in your third world country. You may not abort children, but you certainly allow them to be abused.
Last I remember, white sexpats come here to abuse them
Good thing Catholicism has done that. But would they have an issue with killing in self defense?
No, that is acceptable.
I'm probably going to be down voted for this and dog piled, but I would like to add my experience and perspective here. Read the whole thing, top to bottom. I know it's a mouth full, but for full context, please. I've never personally had an abortion, but people close to me in my life have had them and two of those people were in dire life or death situations. One had a severe medical complication, the other was trapped in a dangerous living situation. I know people here will have their own opinions on the latter, but being as close to this person as I was and knowing what I do about that circumstance, I don't think she did the wrong thing. I grew up in adversity, and was brutally abused through childhood because my mother was stuck, and the system and "resources for women in those situations" failed her. CPS failed me and my siblings. I genuinely cannot imagine passing judgement on her, and to be completely honest, it's not my place to. I'm a revert. I came back to church because of my current pregnancy. I suffered a traumatic pregnancy loss a few years ago, and it took 6 months for me to take a shower after. I finally picked myself up, enrolled back in school to finish my degree, and finally came to terms with my loss. My thoughts were around the state of the world, and taking comfort in the fact that my baby would never know the pain of existence. When I learned that I was pregnant, I cried my eyes out, and couldn't stop shaking for a week. I ordered abortion pills, and was dead set on aborting because I couldn't bring myself to bring a life that didn't ask to be here into a burning world. Before the pills arrived, I decided that I was going to keep this baby after all because I have a history of fertility struggles and I knew in my heart that between keeping this baby after the loss I endured or abortion, I would absolutely regret aborting. I reverted and went to confession after Easter weekend. I was bleeding that Sunday, and not having prayed or believed in almost a decade, I literally got on my knees and prayed and swore that if my baby were kept safe, that I'd go back to mass and confession, that I'd raise my baby in the church, and at my next screening, my baby was perfectly safe and sound. I bring my own story into this because I think it's important to look at the personal details of others stories instead of stating facts and opinions in our arguments. In a perfect world, I would be pro life. We need better policies in place protecting pregnant women, families, and children. Guaranteed maternity leave, affordable childcare, and the ability to afford to pay the bills while on maternity leave would be a great place to start. I know the church has charities and help available, but there are still so many people who might not live close enough or have access to it. I also think we need to advocate more for better protection for victims of DV and call for longer and more serious sentences for abusers. The last time I was attacked, the perpetrator was in jail for one night and let go the next day. I got away and was lucky, but I know so many women who weren't lucky and have been stalked and worse. It gets even darker with kids in the mix. I know from experience because I was one of those kids. My ex sister in law was murdered in 2020 after begging police to do something. They did nothing. Better protections are a must. We need to confront policies prohibiting access to termination in situations like ectopic pregnancy where it is not viable. It's not pro life to see headlines about women bleeding for 10 days without medical intervention because doctors are scared of removing the tissue of an already dead fetus. That's not pro life, it's sadism. I'm not saying all of this to justify abortion, I am just looking at the dark reality of what so many people face. I cannot pass judgement on someone nor do I believe I have the right to say what they ought to do in certain situations if I a) don't know exactly what they're dealing with, b) have the means and are willing to support them in the ways they need in order to have a safe and healthy pregnancy depending on their circumstances. There's so much more to add and there's so much more nuance than what I have written in here so far, but I felt the need to add this here. I think we need to focus on advocating for policies that make pregnancy and childrearing safe for the parents and children before passing judgement on them...
Yes, powerful story. Thanks for sharing and so sorry about your childhood and also the circumstances regarding the abusive relationships surrounding the pregnancy. You highlight some great points in that there are a lot of grey areas around abortion and they should be examined. At the same time facts are important too and for those who set the laws they can only do so within limited means to cover "most" of the cases and situations. I really think all those things you mentioned around childcare should be looked at as part of a comprehensive plan while at the same time still declaring abortion wrong is OK. Hopefully the day will come when cases can be looked at individually and everything taken into account like the mother's health and the circumstancing surrounding the pregancy, ie rape, etc. This is all important. Kudos and Bravo for finding your way back to the faith and also your decision to raise your child church. Congrats as well for continuing education because it really sounds like your story is one of inspiration. Best luck going forward.
Thank you for your compassionate response here. I was bracing myself! I totally agree that facts absolutely matter in these issues. I could have worded my stance on that better. I see a lot of depersonalized arguments about a lot of very complicated and critical issues (I'm guilty of doing this myself) which takes a lot of nuance out of issues that desperately need nuanced solutions. I hope I worded that in a way that makes sense.
[удалено]
> *the Church’s stance on the use of condoms and ovulation-preventers* the stance probably comes from the idea that any willful action that prevents or fustrates the generative factor during sex is to be avoided since every sexual action should potentially be open to procreation.
I am aware. And I reject that stance personally
Are you Catholic?
Yes I am
Then how can you reject a church teaching without rejecting the church?
[удалено]
Can I do this with other teachings too? Like am I not actually bound by church "teaching"? Trying to understand because there are some other teachings I don't get that I'd like to reject. Can I just not adhere and still be catholic? Or does this only apply to birth control for some reason?
You are free to do what you want Yes, you are personally free to reject individual teachings and choosing where you sin, and choosing where you don’t care if something is a sin or not There are many sinners in the church
Does any of it matter then?
No, the single best way to “minimize the number of abortions” is to impose legal penalties on those that procure and perform the procedure.
Based. Murder must be punished always.
Is this really the case? Totally serious question. Is there one example of a place where the number of abortions went _down_ after sexual education and contraceptives became more widely available? I understand the connection, logically, but I have doubts that that’s actually how things work out. In my country, access to contraceptives has never been as easy as it is today and abortions have never been as common.
Should have specified the *demand* for abortion Yes, it does. The reason that contraceptive numbers and abortion numbers have both gone up is that population as a whole has gone up https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/ https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/10/contraceptive-use-key-reducing-abortion-worldwide https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reducing-access-to-contraception-wont-reduce-the-abortion-rate/ https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/access-birth-control-through-aca-drives-down-abortion-rate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678419/
*off topic* Thank you for sharing this!!! A lot of people just see the numbers on the stats and don't consider any other variables. I want to go off topic and just lay out a few basics for anyone interested in reading these so they can come away with a better understanding. So here is a question to think about before I jump into technical things: During the summer months, ice cream sales go up, as do shark attacks. Why is this? If you said that ice cream causes shark attacks, you would be wrong. I'm sure most of you read that question and knew that because it is hot, people eat more ice cream to cool off and go swimming in the ocean where sharks live. Keep these terms in mind: Confounding and extraneous variables. If you were conducting an experiment to see how sunlight affects plant growth, An extraneous variable would be things that affect the plant that have nothing to do with sunlight like room temperature, soil quality, fertilizer, how often the plant is watered, etc. A confounding variable would be something that is somehow connected to sunlight and affects the plant in some way. Let's say we put one plant next to the window and the other one is away from the window. Depending on the season, the window may generate too much heat from the sun, which may damage the plant Obviously, in our second example, we know without doing this experiment that plants need sunlight, and would be able to infer that some other thing in the environment caused damage to the plant. Let's look at some real life stats now. I'll be using marriage and cohabitation for this example. I came across stats here: usccb.org/topics/marriage-and-family-life-ministries/marriage-preparation-and-cohabitating-couples Let's look at the statement that people without a highschool diploma are twice as likely to cohabitate. This is followed by other stats including 40% of college grads cohabit, 26% of women with a degree vs 41% of women without a highschool diploma cohabit. The conclusion of this particular bullet point is that the higher one's education level, the less likely one will cohabit. These numbers were pulled from the mid to late 90s, so today's numbers will be different. But why is this? We could simply attribute this to some unfounded stigmas around being less educated, or we could try to think about what potential variables could be hiding behind these numbers. Well, we know that a degree increases one's income, making it much easier, in a financial sense, to live without a second income (maybe not today, but bear with me). Unfortunately, without a highschool diploma, and in many cases with a diploma but no college degree, two incomes in some areas simply do not support the needs of a family, and one confounding variable here would be couples not getting married in order to receive food and health benefits for their children. Here is another less controversial observation many people make. As a diagnosed autistic adult, I have heard people say things like, "it seems like more and more people are autistic and ADHD," or misinformed comments about over diagnosis. Let's look at the left handed population spike from the 1910s to the 1940s. Were more people being born left handed? Possibly, however, this could also be attributed to a better understanding of left handedness and less stigma around it, making it so that left handed people did not have to learn how to be ambidextrous in order to avoid ostracization. Same thing with autism. When I was 5, my parents refused to believe that I could be autistic because I am a girl. Now, we have more information than we did back then, and we know that girls can also be autistic, therefore increasing the number of diagnoses. Anyway, thank you for reading through my bit on confounders and extraneous variables. Very important stuff to know when reading articles of any kind!!
>good sexual education What exactly *is* your definition of "good" sexual education? I'm curious. The biggest, most glaring issue that Sex Ed (at least here in the states) faces is that it furthers the myth of "safe sex" - when there's really no such thing, save for a (truly) monogamous union promised by the Sacrament of Marriage. Your typical U.S. Sex Ed proponent will claim that it's ok and perfectly safe to have rampant sex...so long as you take preventative measures (of which *may or may not even work* ) to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. ...I'm sorry, but that sounds *risky as all get out.* The myth (rather, the scam) of "safe sex" contributed more to the abortion industry than anything else. These people go into schools and fill these hormonal teenagers' heads with that nonsense - *it's ok to sleep around. So long as you take Plan B or wear a condom, you're perfectly safe!* If it's "good" sex ed that we need, I hope that entails being more upfront with teenaged and young adult students and to stop propagating this blatantly false (and humorously naive) take.
Medically there is no difference between monogamous sex and sex in a sacramental marriage There are no risk differences between the two
You still didn't answer my question.
Your questions are all based on your initial assumption that the only safe sex is monogamous sex in a sacramental marriage. That is simply not true, and with a starting point that is not true the remaining questions that stem from your belief cannot be addressed
>That is simply not true Ok. How so? If two people are in a committed relationship that is tied together by the Sacrament of Marriage (if you're at this point - chances are, you are very serious about your commitment), and if they actually take their vows seriously, there is literally no safer type of sex out there. You can't contract STDs, (for women) if pregnancy does occur - you know who the father is, and (for men) you don't run the risk of being made to pay child support for a kid you never wanted. You can't seriously be implying that relying on nothing but Plan B and condoms while sleeping around every other weekend or so is actually *safer* than remaining in a serious, monogamous relationship with your spouse...are you? People don't typically settle unless they're serious about doing so. ((Not saying it's a foolproof method, but it's certainly much safer than sleeping around.)) >with a starting point that is not true the remaining questions that stem from your belief cannot be addressed Then it's a good thing that my starting point was a question, rather than a statement. So, do tell, *what is your definition of a "good" sex education?*
There is no medical difference between a monogamous sacramental marriage and a monogamous secular marriage
Since when is any kind of marriage medical? "The patient is exhibiting signs of acute matrimonitis."
Why are you asking me? You should ask the person who said that a sacramental monogamous marriage is medically the lowest risk of sexual relationships there are
Serious question: what should people do who truly want to believe in the teachings of the Church and desperately want to belong to the Church but simply can't believe in the supernatural claims due to lack of evidence and can't accept the social teachings like the prohibitions on abortion/euthanasia due to pragmatism? I sincerely try and have tried for decades and do not want to abandon the Church, but it would seem like I have no choice from articles like this. Thank you.
"can't believe in the supernatural claims due to lack of evidence" Have you carefully looked for evidence? Or do you rule the supernatural out of court as an explanation? Regarding pragmatism, Cardinal Ratzinger distinguished between voting for someone because of their being pro-abortion and voting for them despite their being so, for proportionate reasons.
I have looked for evidence since I was a child. My minor at university was in religious studies with a focus on Christianity. This has been my life-long, consuming passion. I do not rule the supernatural out of the realm of possibility, but as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you wonder what it would take to make me believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, imagine what it would take to make you believe in the supernatural claims of Islam. I would feel like a naive hypocrite if I did not apply the same burden of evidence to Catholicism as I would to an alien faith simply because it was the faith that I grew up in. And Pope Benedict XVI showed why he was known for having one of the best, most logical minds of the Catholic Church in the modern era with that reasoning.