Posted on 08/01/2018 9:10:58 AM PDT by Morgana
God forbid a Catholic priest preaches what the Catholic Church teaches. But because of that, Mary Elizabeth Williams, a staff writer for Salon and self-proclaimed Catholic, doesn’t know how she can be Catholic anymore.
William’s parish got assigned a new priest who is outspokenly pro-life and for traditional marriage, she wrote in a July 29 piece. That’s not a surprise, as these beliefs are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But apparently this newfound information caused her to walk out of Mass. She agrees with a Catholicism that is “spirituality rooted in real world action, one that speaks out from the pulpit against greed and violence” and praised her parish for collecting food for the poor. But a priest teaching doctrine is “the other kind of Catholicism,” the bad kind.
She and her daughter “flinched when he spoke of ‘traditional’ marriage, which can ‘only be between a man and woman,’" she wrote. She knew the “Vatican's official stance on marriage equality,” but preferred the previous priest who quoted Pope Francis’ unverified statement about gay marriage (“God makes us who we are and loves us as we are”).
The major thing that set her off and caused her to walk out was his position on abortion. She had to “figure out where my daughters and I fit in within a culture that is inhospitable to women,” she wrote. This “inhospitality has become intolerable,” she added, because the priest dared to quote Mother Teresa saying that "the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself."
She continued to write about why this is harmful to a woman, using a 2012 story of a pregnant teen with leukemia who, according to the CNN link she provided, “had been undergoing chemotherapy, died from complications of the disease.” But according to Williams, the teen was denied chemo because she was pregnant. Seems like she didn’t thoroughly read the link.
She doesn’t “expect any parish to contradict the church's official stance on key issues,” however, she said a priest cannot “speak authoritatively on the motivations of women with regard to their own bodies” because he has “never faced that choice — or likely even spoken honestly with someone who has.”
Afterwards she had a talk with her 14-year-old daughter about “what to do when our personal beliefs don't match up with what someone in authority says we should do.” It’s probably safe to say she will not be returning to Mass, claiming that “it's not our beliefs that have changed; it's our staffing.”
“My family and I are all pro-Jesus”
“when the new priest was conducting services, my daughter and I both flinched when he spoke of “traditional” marriage, which can “only be between a man and woman.”
“We talked about what to do when our personal beliefs don’t match up with what someone in authority says we should do.”
Like Jesus?
This is a (Pro Jesus?) woman who probably doesn’t read the Bible because she doesn’t like what it has to say and has allowed other people to tell her how to think.
Never made the claim that it was "hunky-dory". Just that Rome's position on this issue has been very, very fluid.
In fact, Catholic teaching all the way back to the Didache (late first century) correctly identifies abortion as a violation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," later debates about ensoulment notwithstanding.
The Didache did note that, but other writers that Rome has built a lot of its theology upon have differed. And it must be noted that Rome did not incorporate the Didache into its canon at Trent when it had the chance to.
The whole issue could have been resolved by an appeal to Scripture.
Why Should We Value Life?
"Know that the LORD Himself is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture" (Psalm 100:3, NASV).
"Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone . . .'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASV).
"But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all of us are the work of Thy hand" (Isaiah 64:8, NASV).
Who Is the Creator of the Preborn?
"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).
How Is God Concerned With the Preborn?
But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace . . ." (Galatians 1:15, RSV).
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for giving us through Christ every possible spiritual benefit as citizens of heaven! For consider what he has done—before the foundation of the world He chose us to become, in Christ, His holy and blameless children living within His constant care" (Ephesians 1:3-4, PME).
Are the Preborn Human Beings?
"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…[saying] ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy'" (Luke 1:41, 44, NIV).
The Lord Jesus Christ began his incarnation as an embryo, growing into a fetus, infant, child, teenager, and adult: "While they were there, the time came for the baby to born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son" (Luke 2:6-7, NIV).
Who Is Responsible for Life and Death?
Then God spoke all these words, saying . . . 'You shall not murder'" (Exodus 20:1, 13, NASV).
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
Are Humans Permitted to Take Life Before Birth?
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" (Exodus 21:22-25, NIV).
Should a Child Conceived as a Result of Rape or Incest Be Aborted?
"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16, NKJV).
Should a Child Who Might Be Born Deformed or Disabled Be Aborted?
"So the LORD said to him, 'Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?'" (Exodus 4:11, NKJV).
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands?' Woe to him who says to his father, 'What have you begotten?' or to his mother, 'What have you brought to birth?' This is what the LORD says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question Me about My children, or give Me orders about the work of My hands?" (Isaiah 45:9-11, NIV).
"Yet, to shame the wise, God has chosen what the world counts folly, and to shame what is strong, God has chosen what the world counts weakness" (1 Corinthians 1:27, NIV).
How Should A Woman View Her Body and the Preborn Life Growing in Her Womb?
"Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3, NASV).
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV).
Does God Forgive Those Who Have Had Abortions?
"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace . . ." (Ephesians 1:7, NKJV).
"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" (Isaiah 43:25, NASV).
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/love-and-sex/abortion/what-the-bible-says-about-the-beginning-of-life
My dear ealgeone, I think we have been friends good enough, and long enough, for me to say:
Your ignorance is showing.
You should check out THE truly comprehensive (in the historico-academic sense) study of the legal and moral history of abortion through the centuries, written by John Noonan, and then get back to me:
The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives
My sources are posted for all to see.
I merely cited the opinions of some writers Roman Catholicism clings to on other issues. That they disagree with the statement, "Roman Catholicism has always opposed abortion" is not up for debate.
Rome has made a number of these claims and when the evidence is examined their position comes up short.
My dear ealgeone, I think we have been friends good enough, and long enough, for me to say:
Your ignorance is showing.
Mrs D...you offer yet another backhanded compliment you are infamous for and for which a lot of us tolerate.
We have overlooked a lot of your "comments" and at times selected editing of articles.
Now, we can continue to post to each other in a more respectful manner or we can resort to your form. Ball is in your court.
The Church in the U.S. hasn't been teaching for over 50 years.
Abortion has always been considered a serious sin, from way back before Thomas Aquinas.
The philosophical question was, "Is this the serious sin of homicide, or is this the serious sin of filthy, prideful aggression against God, the Lord and Giver of Life?"
Either way it was a serious sin. It is forbidden. I don't think you "get" that.
The distinction being considered by Aquinas was philosophically legitimate, since it was based on the objective question, "Is this a living human being?" It was in a practical sense unrelated to pastoral moral guidance, since if the early embryo were in some sense pre-human, analogous to an ovum or a sperm, terminating it would still be the sin of contraception, and it would still be forbidden.
Still forbidden. Get that?
But they didn't know about ova and sperm. So they were taking their theoretical reasoning as far as they could to make a philosophical, but not a practical moral, distinction.
But since you don't allow yourself to think your way through the criteria of serious (or mortal) sin, or the moral fact that there are different classifications or degrees or gradations of sin, I don't see how it would make any difference to you, one way or another.
Such questions have a continuing relevance. For instance, many Christians (wrongly) believe that while abortion is a sin, contraception and sterilization are not. If that's the case, are ALL formulations of the Pill morally wrong? Or some of them? Or none of them?
In order to figure that out, you'd have to know whether each of them disrupts reproduction at the level of ovulation, or fertilization, or implantation.
These are scientific questions, but they would impinge on whether the Pill is a sterilizant (which disrupts ovulation) or a contraceptive (which disrupts fertilization) or a contragestive (which disrupts implantation).
Plus, there are emerging natural-philosophical (scientific) questions which are likewise legitimate.
For instance, scientists are now making synthetic life forms with mixtures of human and non-human genetic material. They do not have a 100% human genome. Is making them, a sin? Is killing them, a sin?
And if so, is it the sin of homicide?
Say you have a GMO embryo that's 40& human and 60% bonobo. Or a chimera that's 90% human and 10% pig. Or a maternal diploid human genome merged with a non-maternal ovum with non-maternal cytoplasm and a non-maternal mitochondrion.
If you kill it, is it homicide?
How would you even know, how would you think your way through, if it's not found in your Biblical concordance, or in an index entry like "Genetically Modified Embryopgenesis according to Leviticus"?
By the way, Judaism does not teach that their Scriptures say that abortion is murder, forbidden as an exceptionless norm. Do you think the Hebrew Scriptures teach this?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Nobody would deny that. That's because "some writers" don't know much about Roman Catholicism.
Yeah, I agree. sigh.
Abortion has always been considered a serious sin, from way back before Thomas Aquinas.
Now you're changing the argument.
The argument was Rome has always opposed this when if fact that just is not true....as is the case with so many of Rome's claims to "we've always believed ________".
Rome had carved out and allowed exceptions for murdering the unborn child.
Either way it was a serious sin. It is forbidden. I don't think you "get" that.
Yet it was allowed under certain circumstances. I don't think you "get" that. Maybe your Roman Catholic pride won't allow you to "get" that aspect of history.
Here again, we get into another system of definitions Rome uses to justify their statements.
So while the Roman Catholic can say they've always been against abortion, one has to qualify that word as understood by its usage at the time.
Further it is inaccurate to say Roman Catholicism has always defended the life of the unborn child from birth as history shows otherwise...and I think you know that.
This is a very frustrating aspect of Roman Catholicism I've encountered. Rome seems to parse words more than the clinton's or democrats do. I've found you've got to really dig down to find out what the word(s) mean to Rome.
But since you don't allow yourself to think your way through the criteria of serious (or mortal) sin, or the moral fact that there are different classifications or degrees or gradations of sin, I don't see how it would make any difference to you, one way or another.
Oh, I do think through the seriousness of sin. However, Rome's position on mortal sins is not justified by Scripture....maybe in their writings....but not inspired Scripture.
I was having a debate with one of your fellow Roman Catholics who actually tried to argue that a "little stealing" did not constitute a "mortal sin" when the commandment against stealing is clear....thou shall not steal. Sure seems to include all forms of stealing to me.
Such questions have a continuing relevance. For instance, many Christians (wrongly) believe that while abortion is a sin, contraception and sterilization are not. If that's the case, are ALL formulations of the Pill morally wrong? Or some of them? Or none of them?
Yet Rome does allow contraception via NFP....it's just a different form of contraception designed to avoid pregnancy...which is what contraception is designed to do.
Nobody would deny that. That's because "some writers" don't know much about Roman Catholicism.
Those writers are Augustine of Hippo ("vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion" as a crime, in any stage of pregnancy, although he accepted the distinction between "formed" and "unformed" fetuses mentioned in the Septuagint translation of Exodus 21:22-23, and did not classify as murder the abortion of an "unformed" fetus since he thought that it could not be said with certainty whether the fetus had already received a soul.), Aristotle, Lactantius (following Aristotle's view – spoke rather of the soul that was "infused" in the body after forty days or more), Anselm of Canterbury, Decretum Gratiani ("he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.) among others who allowed for abortions as they either didn't believe a human did not come into existence immediately before conception or before ensoulment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Belief_in_delayed_animation
Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until "quickening," or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and therefore early abortion was not murder, though later abortion was.[10][23][not in citation given] Aquinas held that abortion was still wrong, even when not murder, regardless of when the soul entered the body.[60] Pope Stephen V and Pope Sixtus V opposed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.[23][24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion
You did not get my point. Shall I write it again?
No. I got your point. And it is not a correct one.
You're attempting to argue Rome's opposition to abortion in all cases going back to the earliest times and that version just is accurate....as demonstrated by writers Rome appeals to for a lot of their doctrine who you said didn't know anything about Roman Catholicism. I gotta tell ya...that one broke me up.
I'd respect Rome more [and you], if it'd just admit that its position on this issue has changed just as its positions on a lot of its beliefs have changed.
1) Augustine and Aquinas opposed abortion in *all* cases whether it was homicide or not.
How is opposing abortion in *all* cases the same as not opposing abortion?
2)Pre-modern understandings of embryology were and are irrelevant to what was or was not considered a sin in the Catholic Church. It had no impact on Moral Law, because no matter how, where, when or why "hominization" was thought to occur, abortion was still considered a sin, before, during, or after this hypothetical "hominization."
Frustrating the generation of life was considered to be wrong even before fertilization.
Your problem is that you don't know enough about the history of moral law.
You and Frances Kissling are a pair!
Nope.
Augustine of Hippo "vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion" as a crime, in any stage of pregnancy, although he accepted the distinction between "formed" and "unformed" fetuses mentioned in the Septuagint translation of Exodus 21:22-23, and did not classify as murder the abortion of an "unformed" fetus since he thought that it could not be said with certainty whether the fetus had already received a soul.
Following Aristotle's view, it was commonly held by some "leading Catholic thinkers" in early Church history that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. Abortion was viewed as a sin, but not as murder, until the embryo was animated by a human soul.[34] In On Virginal Conception and Original Sin 7, Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception."[22] A few decades after Anselm's death, a Catholic collection of canon law, in the Decretum Gratiani, stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."[22]
2)Pre-modern understandings of embryology were and are irrelevant to what was or was not considered a sin in the Catholic Church. It had no impact on Moral Law, because no matter how, where, when or why "hominization" was thought to occur, abortion was still considered a sin, before, during, or after this hypothetical "hominization."
You continue to post what is not true.
And apparently there is disagreement over this.
Your problem is that you don't know enough about the history of moral law.
I know enough to know that once the egg and sperm unite that's a person.
I also know that Rome's position on this issue has changed over time....as evidenced in just this thread alone.
This is your defense????
It had no impact on Moral Law, because no matter how, where, when or why "hominization" was thought to occur, abortion was still considered a sin, before, during, or after this hypothetical "hominization.
Perhaps you need to re-read the material...it played a great deal in the discussion of the issue.
It now comes down to how you define abortion....again, we have to play word games with Roman Catholicism.
IIRC, it was one of the things cited in Roe to justify the "ruling."
But again, an appeal to the Scriptures would/should have resolved this without all of this "infusion" business.
It's what happens when Rome doesn't use Scripture [to which I posted enough to answer all of the questions on this issue of abortion and when does life begin] as its source of authority and relies upon the "tradition" of man.
Far from it.
She's one of your fellow Roman Catholics.
Kissling and I debated on the radio about years ago. She told me she left the Catholic Church in 1962.
Nothing I've posted is incorrect. It's all been cited.
Your denomination has to redefine words to make them say what you want them to mean.
Kissling and I debated on the radio about years ago. She told me she left the Catholic Church in 1962.
I trust you were better prepared than today.
She was President of Catholics for a Free Choice (founded 1973) from 1982 until 2007 when she turned over the reins to Jon O’Brien.
Well, as ya'll like to tell former Roman Catholics on these threads....you're always a Roman Catholic....you cannot leave.
Is this another change in Roman Catholicism??
Scripture doesn't even contain a clear definition for what is meant by "life." The earliest, Genesis 2:7, is seemingly clearest. The first human became a “living being” (nefesh hayah, “a living breath”) when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breathe. Human life begins when you start breathing, biblical writers thought. It ends when you stop. That’s why the Hebrew word often translated “spirit” (ruah) — “life force” might be a better translation — literally means “wind” or “breath.”
But from that you cannot get a principle about not killing the unborn, since they do not begin to have air-breathing pulmonary capacity until after they are born.
That's one reasons why taking the time to define things, and to analyze the relationship between fact and law, is so important.
On the other hand, Judge Noonan's extremely detailed analysis of the legal and moral evaluation of abortion through the ages, shows that Catholic opposition to abortion is as near as you can get to a principle or norm of justice that can be formulated exceptionlessly.
But you and Frances Kissling have your own ideas about that. Carry on. Don't let brilliant and superb scholarship deter you. You can always find dissenters, if there's a sufficiently strong motivation for dissent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.