Catholic theology prof: Catholic church used to be pro-choice
Back in the 16th century, you had a pro-choice view on abortion that was held by all three of the magisteria: The Papal and Episcopal Magisterium, the Magisterium of the Theologians, and also the Magisterium of the Laity, everyone accepted this was truth…
… Why not go back to Saint Antoninus, the Dominican Archbishop of Florence? Antoninus held that you could justify early abortions when necessary to save the woman’s life, a category in his day which was huge.
~ Daniel C. Maguire, professor of Theology at Marquette University, setting the record straight that the Catholic Church was pro-choice centuries ago and we just didn’t know it, as part of the Catholics for Choice documentary project, The Secret History of Sex, Choice, and Catholics, via Strong Families, November 29
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Absurd beyond belief. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS rejected abortion as a sin against the family. When science discovered that life begins at conception about 150 years ago, the Catholic Church acknowledged that abortion is homicide. Prior to that time, nobody knew how or when life began, because we didn’t know about ova until then.
I am detecting a slight undercurrent of anti Catholicism over here at jillstanek.com. This story, the story last week about pro-life legal efforts, and the other story about the joys of vasectomy, are not outright attacks, but definitely a less than gentle poke in the ribs. Are you intending to make the Catholics uneasy or put them on the defensive? You’re certainly free to take this in any direction you chose, but just letting you know–it’s becoming kind of noticeable.
It’s true that along centuries the Catholic Church was not perfect. And protestantism was not perfect either, as we know that the revolutionary movement had its roots upon protestantism of 16th and 17th centuries (for instance, Cromwell and the English revolution).
But the argument of “the errors of a few” committed in the past or present, does not apply and is a fallacy of mediocrity (low-leveling an whole institution by the acts of a few people) — because, as Saint Augustine wrote in “The City of God”, there is a church on earth and another church on heaven: the church on earth is the church of men who are not perfect.
This is a complete lie and distortion by this anti-Catholic group called Catholics for Choice.
They need to read more and leave all the statements by the Church fathers in context.
Jamie, I don’t think Jillstanek is anti Catholic. They have posted as many pro-abortion posts from pro-abortion Protestant church leaders as well. Perhaps the point isn’t to make Catholics uncomfortable, but to shine light in the darkness, wherever darkness may hide? All humans are capable of darkness, imho, and they can be clergy or politicians or store clerks.
It’s dangerous to blindly put your trust in any institution. No one should blindly trust all Catholics, all Republicans, all Democrats, because of the label. They’re people, and people are quite capable of putting on any number of labels (Christian, atheist, pro-life, Catholic, insane, etc) but that doesn’t change who they are and what they advocate. You have to listen carefully to what people actually say and watch how they act to discern the truth about them. Be careful about being lulled by the label someone’s acquired.
Wow, how did I know this quote was from Dan Maguire? I read his book “Sacred Choices” which claims to give a “scholarly” justification for Catholics to procure an abortion. It was an absolute joke. Sometimes you read this books that have an opposing viewpoint and you have to really take a while and think carefully how you would refute them. Not this one. There were no references or citations that made it all possible to check the claims he was making, and even if they were true, they were lame and weak. It is pathetic that Maguire is considered a scholar. As I said in my review to his book, it is hard to know what to make of him because usually such horrendous evil can be attributed to demon possession. However, demon possession is clearly out of the question because the devil is extremely brilliant and able to give clever and subtle arguments that make people actually think. To accuse someone of being a liar is to look into their hearts and judge them. So quite honestly the most charitable understanding of Maguire is that he is incompetent.
LibertyBelle, I wonder if other Catholic readers are noticing what I’m saying. Posts like this one beg a defense. They aren’t patent absurdities, like the Lena Dunham ad, but are purported to be the views of Catholics, demanding an explanation from other Catholics. This Maguire is a wayward sheep to say the least–good Catholics know this–but the way this was placed seems determined not to point out how ridiculous this man is, but to plant a seed of doubt.
Lol. Because anything other than “all forms of contraception is evil” is anti-Catholic or something?
Jamie like half the mods are Catholic, I doubt that they would stick around if Jill was anti-Catholic.
Just to add my own $0.02: Jill is most definitely not anti-Catholic, nor do I think that this article can fairly be read in that light (even if one were hypothetically supposing that she wrote an anti-Catholic article by sheer accident). Personally, I took the wording to mean that “[c]atholics for Choice” is stooping to great lengths (mixed metaphor intended) to distort Catholic history and teaching, in order to further its own anti-Catholic, corrupt agenda.
Just for the information of any non-Catholics (or Catholics, for that matter) who don’t yet know: members of “[c]atholics for Choice” are excommunicated from the Catholic Church by simple virtue of their willing membership in “cFC”; technically, they are Catholics, but they are dead Catholics (spiritually speaking), cut off from the Church to which they appeal. The Church prays every day for their conversion and return. The best thing to do with any writings from “[c]atholics for Choice” is to ignore them (save in select circumstances where it’s quite plain that some unwitting person is being deceived by them–though I do wonder at what sort of person could possibly be “taken in” by them who wasn’t already sympathetic to them!).
Jamie,
I do not agree. I have noticed it both ways. That is appropriate as there are several Cafeteria Catholics who ignore the teachings of the Church.
Regarding the quote of the day:
Daniel Maguire is completely disingenuous in his assertion St. Antoninus was pro-choice. A little study of this Saints statement would inform he was referring to the animation of the child. Prior to the beginning of life being known, when the soul was considered to be infused; only to save the life of the mother did the to be Saint consider this acceptable. He was consistent in that the life of the mother and the child are of equal value, and this is consistent in his balanced approach to many matters of his day. Not compromising in the faith, rather balanced in his approach to such questions. Maguire does a great abuse to the Saint in manipulating this Saint’s balanced approach.
Seven hundred years ago, bleeding a patient was the standard medical practice in cases of most illnesses. Today, we now know life begins at conception, just as today we would not recommend bleeding a patient to cure depression or pneumonia. Having said that, if a mother is suffering from cancer, and chemotherapy may well save her and may well kill the child, the Church would not expect her to refuse the lifesaving medication that may end the life of the child, but the Church does not condone deliberately aborting the child even if doing so might increase the effectiveness of the chemotherapy.
Libertybelle, the Roman Catholic Church is not an “institution”, it is the mystical body established by Jesus Christ here on earth. It is made up of its earthly members, but its destiny is to be unified and glorified in Heaven with Jesus Christ.
Institutions/organizations/groups like Catholics for Choice have excommunicated themselves from the mystical body by subscribing to these heretical beliefs that doubt the sanctity of life from the moment of conception. In effect, they have renounced the vows they made at baptism and restated at their confirmation.
I’m not accusing Jill of any sentiment. I know that there are many contributors to this blog, and I stand by my observations of late.
“I’m not accusing Jill of any sentiment. I know that there are many contributors to this blog, and I stand by my observations of late.”
I was curious about a comment you made in your first post. You really think a post that talks about a possible benefit of a form of contraception is somehow anti-Catholic? Something that doesn’t agree with the Church’s teaching is like trying to alienate you guys?
Wow. If this is “anti-Catholic” then the vast majority of this blog is calling for the summary execution of all atheists. RUN, JACK!
Step back Jack,
If abortion is Grendal, contraception is Grendal’s mother. It was developed as an anti-life solution to end poverty and reduse undesirables in society, then sold to you and me as a “good” thing. It is a carcinogen that the APA is now recommending we hand out to our children like candy over the counter and demanding all pay for under all circumstances for regular consumption under the guise of a health benefit. Articles praising the benefits of such a thing is offensive to us guys.
Some of my favorite atheists comment here, ;>) !
These not-catholics are an abomination. But while they live there is hope for their conversion.
Lol David. Sorry everyone in the world doesn’t agree with you. I know it’s difficult.
And lol I know X. We must fear for our lives. Haha.
I am referring to the pill. It is not a matter of agree or disagree. Anyone is capable of doing so. It is just a fact that contraception is not good for you. It is a fact it was not developed to be good for you. Today it is used as a convenience. I can understand how Jamie may take exception to singing the praises on contraception.
Lol David, you must be new? The majority of this blog is really against hormonal contraception. I think Jamie is talking about a post that was talking about how vasectomies might possibly reduce abortions in older women. If disagreeing with a certain Catholic teaching is “anti-Catholic”, then, like X said, this blog really really hates her and me and all non-religious people lol.
Well, I would not say I am new, but I did not see that article. I do not comment often. I suppose if I did, I might understand better some of the reference to summary execution. Still … remember the good old days of Oliver Cromwell? lol.
I never said a word about hate. I think I said “uneasy” and “defensive”.
The only anti-anything this large and rather diverse prolife community I am thankful for for daily updates exhibits is anti-killing of the child. Well, that and anti-derailing comment threads with trollish observations. Maybe in 500 years they will say Planned Parenthood was really against abortion all along…
LOL This conversation has turned hilarious. Do you know that other people come to this blog and assume Jill Stanek is Catholic? Just some food for thought.
Watched the video… they bring up St. Augustine and the idea of ensoulment. St. Augustine was clear that he did not know when ensoulment took place but accepted that consensus that it may take place somewhere later in the pregnancy – 3 to 4 months. However, he also said that since he did not know for sure when babies were ensouled mothers should err on the side of caution and should not abort. This is the part they cover up: St. Augustine and the Church were light years ahead of their time (and Catholics for Choice) in their prudent recognition of preborn life.
Furthermore, for them to rely on 4th century understanding of human development is contrary to reason, something St. Augustine and the entire Church has a huge problem with. For the Church – faith and reason go together. They even get the modern day accepted scientific understanding of human development wrong.
Finally, at the beginning of the video they bring up the St. Augustine’s view of sexuality and distort it and then imply that the Church accepted this distorted version of St. Augustine’s view of sexuality as Church teaching. First, St. Augustine taught that original sin is not the result of the sexual act!!!!! Original sin is the result of humanity’s disobedience to God – eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Concupisence, or a desire for sex that can never be completely satiated, is a consequence of the first sin. They completely invert the order and confuse the consequence for the commission. The confusion comes in because the first (original) sin is transmitted through to the rest of humanity by the mere fact of human reproduction. Our parent’s sexual act does not create original sin in us, original sin is in humanity and it is passed on through the generations via sexual reproduction. In other words, St. Augustine was making an observation of our human condition, he was not being prescriptive about the nature of human sexuality.
Tyler, please. You know what I was saying. Any gather of people, mystical holies or what have you. You just can’t blindly trust someone just because they wrap themselves in a pretty title that we like.
As a Christian, I’m not just going to trust someone cause he calls himself a pastor. So? What does he believe? Who is he? How does he live? Just because a politician says he’s “conservative” or whatever, I’m not just going to give him a pass on everything. Anywho, I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t believe in your mystical holy body or whatever.
Also, Jamie, I just think you’re being a little paranoid, lol. No offense, but as I state earlier, Jill and her team post stuff that’s intended to be food for thought. And it’s pretty clearly stated and implied that these so-called Catholic s for Choice are in violation of the churches teaching! Jill routinely praises Catholics for their dedication to the life movement. She’s just pointing out that there are some straying sheep, so we can discuss what they say.
So chill, we’re all friends here – this eclectic group of anti-abortion people, atheist, Catholic, protestant, whatever. :)
Oy vey. It’s due to the false teachings of those like Maguire that I won’t send my children to a Catholic university.
Also, do you get the point of quotes of the day? the one about vasectomies was quoted from a another country (UK, I believe) and the points of quotes of the day are not, in fact, things that Jill supports, but controversial things that are being said around the world.
SO Jill quotes things people say that pertain to life. Lots of people are anti-Catholic, so yes, maybe some quotes are against Catholic teaching, but that’s because that’s the way the world is! and Jill is basically reporting on it.
Oy. Sorry for the errors. Been a looooooooooong week. :P
We need to put more pressure on these kind of groups – CINOs or otherwise. We need to make them understand that their anti-life statements are not welcome.
I agree with Paladin that the best thing to do with such groups like this is to ignore them. I would also add that we should not give them a megaphone and we should be careful to not help publicize their views.
Lrning – I totally agree that we need to be very very cautious about where we send our kids to college. But there are definitely some very good and faithful Catholic universities out there. If you have a genuine interest, check out the Newman Guide published by the Cardinal Newman Society http://thenewmanguide.com/default.aspx
And I must say that as a Catholic myself, I would never ever characterize Jill or this site as anti-Catholic. As someone said earlier, the only thing anti about this site and the people that frequent it (other than the trolls, of course), is that they are anti-killing-babies-in-the-womb.
Catholics who claim murder as a “CHOICE” are not Catholics.
Jill is NOT anti-Catholic.
Ok, Tyler.
I posted the quote today, not Jill.
The point was, as others have written eloquently, to expose the dingbattery so pervasive in this whole “pro-choice catholic” cabal.
If you follow the links and peruse through the videos, one cannot help but roll the eyes and hope that the bishops of these scholarly fools have denied them holy communion.
“Smoke ’em out of their holes” as George W. Bush would say.
That’s right: George W. Bush.
BTW, I’m catholic. So the sooner these folks repent or leave entirely, the better for the faithful.
I think that anyone who postulates that this site may be anti-catholic has even less of a grip on reality than even I get accused of!
Carder I like GWB.
By all means smoke’em out, but just be ready to round’em up too.
IMO, prochoicers - including Catholic prochoicers – should be in prison for crimes against humanity. If we can’t put them in prison, let them struggle trying to get their message out.
Carder, I hope you don’t think I shot the messenger. By no means do I consider this bad reporting. I understand the editorializing is left to the commentators for the quote of the day.
AT ONE TIME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BURNED HERETICS AT THE STAKE RATHER THAN LET THEM TEACH ERROR! I CAN’T WAIT TIL THE MUSLIMS AND CHINESE TAKE OVER THE WEST. ONE OF THEM WILL DESTROY THESE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MURDER LITTLE BABIES AND SODOMIZE BOYS! IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN’T STOP THEM, GOD CAN: But the king shall rejoice in God, all they shall be praised that swear by him: because the mouth is stopped of them that speak wicked things. Psalm 63:11
“prochoicers - including Catholic prochoicers – should be in prison for crimes against humanity” – dangerous idea Tyler, real ‘can of worms’ stuff. You would create a society which breaks into ‘splinter groups’ based on various beliefs and prejudices which would lead to a multi-faceted civil war.
Your solution to heresy is going back to the burning days, ItIStheOrientation? That’s awesome man.
And for the last time the Church doesn’t have any more little boy rapists than any other organization on earth. It’s kinda sad they don’t have less, for an organization that purports to bring a God’s perfection to humanity, but they aren’t any worse, the percentages are about the same. I’m sick of seeing this uneducated “Catholics hurt kids thing”
“IMO, prochoicers - including Catholic prochoicers – should be in prison for crimes against humanity. ”
Are we trying thought crimes now?
It is fitting that those who support genocide against children should suffer the same justice as those Nazis who supported the genocide against Jews.
“It is fitting that those who support genocide against children should suffer the same justice as those Nazis who supported the genocide against Jews”
Germans who supported the Nazi party were not rounded up and put on trial for war crimes. Actual war criminals were, however. This analogy is ridiculous.
Not to mention that we do live in America, where it’s legal for disgusting groups such as NAMBLA, the KKK, and WBC to say whatever terrible things they want and support whatever terrible policies they wish. Pro-choicers would fall under the same protected speech. We aren’t going to start trying people for thinking and speaking wrong, or hello 1984.
ItIStheOrientation:
You can stop YELLING now.
Jack, my comment regarding putting prochoicers in prison refers to the fact that prochoicers spread hate against a specific group of human beings. In my opinion prochoice speech is a real example of hate speech since it incites violence against a specific group of people. I can’t think of a more clear example of hate speech than prochoice speech. Jack if we can put people in prison for selling drugs we should be able to put people in prison for advocating the killing of human beings. So no thought crime…but there is a speech crime. I am not big fan of hate speech laws but if we are going to have them in Western society – prochoice speech should be considered hate speech.
You’re still wrong, Tyler, at least for the US. Hate speech is protected in the US, even violent hate speech, unless the threat to violence is imminent. Even if abortion was illegal, you would have a heck of a time proving that a pro-choicer advocating for legal abortion is causing anabortion to happen imminently, like you have to with violent speech now.
You live in Canada though, I don’t know your hate speech laws there.
“Jack if we can put people in prison for selling drugs we should be able to put people in prison for advocating the killing of human beings”
Lol I missed this gem. Care to explain how that’s a sensible comparison at all? Thoughts and words compared to an action (much as I disagree that selling drugs is a crime worthy of prison, really).
ok Jack – sort of…isn’t the threat to violence imminent for preborn babies? Abortion services are readily available in most American states and there is always the possibility of inciting chemical abortions through the use of RU486.
I realize that as a non-believer human made law is very important to you. Therefore, you rightly want to make sure every action fits neatly into the appropriate humanly prescibed box of either legal action or illegal action.
Fortunately I have read Thomas More’s Utopia.
“ok Jack – sort of…isn’t the threat to violence imminent for preborn babies? Abortion services are readily available in most American states and there is always the possibility of inciting chemical abortions through the use of RU486.”
Well abortion is legal for the moment, and isn’t defined as violence in our law. So any words that support abortion as of now could not be tried as incitement to violence.
I don’t think anyone should be tried for crimes that they committed that weren’t illegal when they committed them, btw. So when abortion becomes criminalized, you can’t go back and try people for hate crimes for advocating for it when it was legal. That’s unconstitutional.
When abortion is finally made illegal… I don’t think you understand what “imminent” means. The KKK can talk all they want about how they think minorities are evil and want them dead, etc etc etc, and that speech is protected. However, it’s incitement to violence if they were all “hey this black guy lives in this house over here, he should be killed right now”. I imagine that laws would be the same for speech supporting abortion if abortion is illegal and considered a form of violence in the eyes of the law. Anyway, laws abridging free speech are on a really ambiguous line between what is okay and what isn’t, and it’s very difficult to prosecute and prove a link between the speech and violence. I doubt anyone would ever be found guilty for incitement to violence for supporting abortion.
Anyway, that’s just going by US laws. I don’t know what your laws are.
“I realize that as a non-believer human made law is very important to you. Therefore, you rightly want to make sure every action fits neatly into the appropriate humanly prescibed box of either legal action or illegal action.”
For the millionth billionth times trillionth time, I don’t want everything illegal that I personally disapprove of or think is wrong and immoral. I can think it’s wrong to support abortion without wanting to make it a crime to espouse pro-choice views. I have no idea why you can’t understand this, I simply can’t explain it any clearer.
ok Jack.
BTW I never talked about what you personally disapprove of…Jack I simply don’t know you that well…and from your many posts objecting to my comments I can further deduce that I know very little about you.
Case closed….you are the legal expert.
Oh you would know more about me if you actually paid attention to what I tell you. ;)
“legal expert” lol at your sarcasm. I just read a lot about free speech laws in the US. It interests me. I don’t know the laws for other countries. I know the UK at least restricts hate speech, if abortion is illegal someday there it might be considered hate speech to support abortion. I don’t know though, in Ireland people are allowed to espouse pro-choice views and they aren’t imprisoned for it.
What laws against hate speech does Canada have? I honestly have no idea.
“Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Abortion is a choice.
Have Catholics for Choice weighed in on the other commandments too? Is it OK for me to steal to provide a meal for a poor man? Is it OK to divorce because life with a spouse has become boring? Is it OK to skip church on Sunday for a round of golf once or twice a year? If they think these are all subjective matters of individual “conscience” and not sinful, then they really don’t understand what it means to be Catholic and what it means to love God, and they should stop pretending they do.
Canada is a lost cause…
“Libertybelle, the Roman Catholic Church is not an “institution”, it is the mystical body established by Jesus Christ here on earth. It is made up of its earthly members, but its destiny is to be unified and glorified in Heaven with Jesus Christ.”
Tyler. It may be an institution that presides over part of the “mystical body” of Christ, but Jesus’ beloved bride is not limited to the members of the Catholic church. It IS a human institution, which is why it has experienced failures among its countless successes.
Jamie,
Your statements are honest and cogent. I have not noticed the subtle knocks on Catholicism that you mention, however I would agree that this post about Dan Maguire made me wince in how it was framed… or rather how it was not rebutted by Jill, or at least with a quote from a respected Catholic apologist. Proof of my discomfort is evident in that I am actually commenting on a blog post, which has perhaps occurred one other time in several years. I don’t expect Jill to be the defender of the Catholic Faith, but I do expect her to avoid misleading others about the Church rather than leave it to the comm boxes to explain.
Lifejoy, we may be getting into semantics. If God graces people outside the faith (i.e. not baptised) with the faith then, of course, they would be part of the mystical body of Christ… which is completely possible because with God all things are possible.
There is an institutional component to the Church/mystical body – the heirarchy - I understand Libertybelle’s point. She was critiquing this part of the mystical body.
With respect to your other point…The wording becomes difficult… because we can say that God calls everyone, but clearly not everyone accepts the call, and since ultimately everything is at God’s doing – not everyone is called!! This is a mystery where I submit to the mercy and justice of God and pray that all souls go to Heaven because I know my own weaknesses and there is no guarantee I will persevere in the faith to the end.
Lifejoy, I like the Protestant idea of being sealed with the Holy Spirit, and that Heaven is assured once a person truly accepts the faith. However, I do not have the expertise or capability to explain the subtle differences, if any, between this idea and the Roman Catholic idea of the Holy Spirit being infused in us. I have heard some say that Catholics are concerned about the sin of presumption but I have yet to find a Protestant who appears persumptuous. Perhaps Paladin could explain if he is around. He is good at explaining things in a fair and educated way. Furthermore, I know very little about the different theologies of the various Protestant denominations. I am definitely not the person to discuss this.
Lifejoy, I should also add that I have not experienced any anti-catholicism by Jill or her team.
I’m appeased, Tyler. =) I understand you.
I am often too concise when I write. I think the second part was echoing LB’s point about being cautious about individual authorities. And to emphasize that human failures within the church are exactly that – further evidence of our need for a Savior, not a reflection of our Savior.
Clearly I am not Catholic, though my dad was raised Catholic-ish. Yeah, you know. Regardless, any notions of infallibility, as I understand them (and I may misunderstand) are very problematic for me.
“because I know my own weaknesses and there is no guarantee I will persevere in the faith to the end”
Well, I can appreciate your humility, but, as you know, when we question our faith we have to turn our eyes toward the object of our faith. Knowing we need faith in Christ is a reflection of our faith in Christ.
Lifejoy, by the way the RC recognizes that the Church has a special affinity with the Protestant denominations. In fact, the RC recognizes most protestant baptisms as valid (as compared of course to the RC baptism).
Lifejoy, are you able to explain the difference between the Protestant view of justification and the Catholic view of redemption? Would you happen to know if there is even a difference? Did I explain the Protestant view of justification well?
I think at one time the difference between the RC concept of redemption and Protestant concept of justification was a big deal, but I don’t think it is as much anymore. I think some smart guys got together and worked it out.
Tyler – I am reading a book about our neglect of the Holy Spirit. I know nothing about the doctrines of the Catholic church on this, and although my Protestant church body holds to the Trinity, I have found my understanding and relationship with the Holy Spirit to be strangely vague and underemphasized, until relatively recent years in the midst of loss. The power of the Holy Spirit is very compelling.
Knowing we need faith in Christ is a reflection of our faith in Christ.
This is going in my personal Quote of the Day book!
My understanding and relationship with the Holy Spirit is also underdeveloped. I too have been searching for books about the Holy Spirit and trying to build that relationship. According to the RC the Holy Spirit is our Advocate and is the person of the Trinity who is here with us currently. Is this what your Church teaches?
Good night Lifejoy.
Chad, I can’t speak for carder (who compiled this post), but I’m pretty sure the explanation given at the end was meant to be sarcastic. Potentially confusing, but I don’t see any “subtle knocks on Catholicism” here.
Quotes of the day typically don’t have very much commentary attached.
Tyler – Well, I have to say that my perspective on differences comes only from the perspective of my church, not my own reading or thinking, and, as you said, I am not certain which distinctions have and have not been neutralized to some extent. This all is clear to me also as I am not familiar with the divide in the concept of “justification” versus “redemption”. I would use these two words synonymously, though that doesn’t mean others more articulate than me would. All that said, the emphasis in my church is Sola fide. Faith alone. Faith without works is dead, and not faith at all. But faith in Christ is the only necessary element. And maybe I’m not even answering your question. =)
“Knowing we need faith in Christ is a reflection of our faith in Christ.” “This is going in my personal Quote of the Day book!”
Glad to pass it on, Praxedes. I heard this idea a few years ago from a pastor at a church I was visiting. It literally changed my life.
A few years back while talking with a group of Catholic women, I mentioned how over the years I have confronted my fears.
I told them that what I now feared the most was losing my faith in Christ. I do indeed need Him.
Well, the fact that they call themselves, Catholics for Choice, is a double euphemism which reads to most true believers as: Liars for abortion.
A. They are not Catholics. The Pope does not recognize any members of this group as Catholic.
B. They are calling abortion, Choice. Which is a lie to begin with, because if it was a choice it would be one option among many, as in Choices. So they are presenting abortion as mandatory, which makes their motives highly questionable, as in why are they for murder?
The answer to this is that they are being funded by some outside group that is benefitting from the slander and murder-I would say maybe USAID, or some other group that puts money into US “Christian,” charities who are willing to promote the reduction of women’s fertility.
That being said, I would also question any quotes they claim come out of the Papacy.
They aren’t: “setting the record straight that the Catholic Church was pro-choice centuries ago and we just didn’t know it”
They spun the record to make it look obscured.
Lifejoy wrote:
I am often too concise when I write.
:) I think I’ve just met my literary opposite! Apparently, if you added us together and divided by two, you’d get two people with posts of normal length… ;)
I haven’t noticed that at all about you, Paladin! And I am a fan of your comments. =) “Dense” is the word I used to hear – But now I’m just lazy, typing from my phone. ; )
Ensoulment occurs at conception Tyler. The Bible teaches we are conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. It would be impossible for any being of the Holy Spirit be devoid of soul.
Jill is not anti-Catholic. You need a tougher skin. Take comfort in your Church and her teachings. These teachings are true and make it clear that there can be no such thing as Catholics for the choice to kill the unborn. It is a blasphemous oxymoron but there will always be disingenuos people who will make their living by making a mockery of one thing or another.
Truthseeker are you directing your comments to me or to Jamie. You must be referring to Jamie’s comments. I have never said that Jill is anti-Catholic – where are you getting this idea from?
With respect to ensoulment I will take your word on it Truthseeker. (I mean this sincerely, I noticed it sounded a bit sarcastic.)
I’m pretty sensitive to anti-Catholicism and my sense (Jill can correct me if I’m wrong and she desires to do so) is that Jill is as disgusted and disheartened as are those of us faithful Catholics at all the drivel we hear from abortion supporters who happened to have been raised Catholic.
And ugh, just went to the catholics for Free Choice website. Why can they just not be honest and stop calling themselves Catholic? No one should have a “don’t let the door hit you” attitude towards Catholics leaving the Church and I would much rather they stay and be faithful. But really. I don’t call myself Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc because I’m not. It’s simply about intellectual honesty.
Back in the 16th century, you had a pro-choice view on abortion that was held by all three of the magisteria: The Papal and Episcopal Magisterium, the Magisterium of the Theologians, and also the Magisterium of the Laity, everyone accepted this was truth…
I suppose you just expect us to take your word for it? I’d love to read the Papal encyclicals defending abortion. Please tell me where I can find them, Daniel.
Antoninus held that you could justify early abortions when necessary to save the woman’s life…
Ummm… you mean just like today? When has the Catholic Church ever said both mother and child should die in these cases? Maguire is defeating his own stupid argument with this. Since when is abortion in a life-threatening situation a “choice?” Women who have life-threatening pregnancies usually want their children before they find out they both will die.
We need to start a research fund to find out what causes the mental illness possessed by “Catholics for Choice” members.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3F2BXGXV0EVLC/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
see the above link to a review of a book on homosexuality in the churrch. Bobby bambino made an assertion above that macguire doesnt give any sources for his opinions. this book which i reviewed on amazon. did alot of the same. it quoted individuals , clergy as well as laity as showing support for homosexuality, but in the end, this scholar did very little to convince me that the magesterium ever taught that homosexuality was anything other than disordered.