Can a Catholic support abortion?

freshpopcorn

If Ireland was to have a referendum in the morning about legalising abortion in Ireland could a Catholic support it?
I'm guessing they couldn't. Or could they support it certain circumstances such as if the woman's life was at risk or fatal fetal abnormalities?

Cabaal

Course they can, the same as non-catholics they can choose to what level they'd like to see it legal.

Sure Catholics in Ireland supported marriage equality even though that was against the church's teachings,

freshpopcorn

Cabaal wrote: »

Course they can, the same as non-catholics they can choose to what level they'd like to see it legal.

Sure Catholics in Ireland supported marriage equality even though that was against the church's teachings,

I know Catholics supported marriage equality but I know where I was from the church didn't make a big deal out of it they basically advised people what how to vote but they didn't tell them.
However I'm not getting the same feeling from them regarding abortion. It almost compared to murder. I hope that makes sense!

eviltwin

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I know Catholics supported marriage equality but I know where I was from the church didn't make a big deal out of it they basically advised people what how to vote but they didn't tell them.
However I'm not getting the same feeling from them regarding abortion. It almost compared to murder. I hope that makes sense!

What does your gut tell you? Go with that. The church says a lot of things that people choose to ignore. Plenty of Catholic people use contraception, have pre marital sex etc. I think everyone should make up their own mind rather than be dictated to. You are an adult after all.

Todd Toddington III

Do you believe in God or do you believe in doctrine? I doubt any deity cares what the Catholic Church's current opinion is, it changes with the times. If you think it's right...

hinault

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If Ireland was to have a referendum in the morning about legalising abortion in Ireland could a Catholic support it?
I'm guessing they couldn't. Or could they support it certain circumstances such as if the woman's life was at risk or fatal fetal abnormalities?

The Catholic Church opposes abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage.

A Catholic voting to support any of these concepts excommunicates themselves from the Church.

freshpopcorn

hinault wrote: »

The Catholic Church opposes abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage.

A Catholic voting to support any of these concepts excommunicates themselves from the Church.

So does that mean the priests that supported same sex marriage can no longer get communion?

hinault

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So does that mean the priests that supported same sex marriage can no longer get communion?

Those clergy who did vote in favour of homosexual marriage have automatically excommunicated themselves.

Therefore any sacraments that these clergy dispense are invalid.

Manach

No, abortion being the destruction of life in this manner a Catholic could not support in such a vote. The bio-ethicist John Known having referenced it in this context as human life being held sacred, invoiiable,and so is a wrong to cause an innocent's death by act or omission. A good site and can better explain this position than I would like http://www.priestsforlife.org/, who describe the pro-Life stance of the Church and the societal impact of abortion.

Speedwell

Since Catholics officially privilege the life of the fetus (viable or unviable) over the life of the born, living, pregnant woman, rank-and-file Catholics must of course comply unthinkingly. "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception..." unless, of course, it's a pregnant woman.

freshpopcorn

What got me thinking about the issue was it was on the news tonight about the UN's views on the Irish laws and then you read articles/posts about how Ireland voted to support same sex marriage in big numbers and how a referendum on abortion would pass.
I know a good few people who supported same sex marriage but wouldn't support abortion. I think the majority of the NO vote in the marriage referendum would also vote No to abortion and it would be very close.

eviltwin

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What got me thinking about the issue was it was on the news tonight about the UN's views on the Irish laws and then you read articles/posts about how Ireland voted to support same sex marriage in big numbers and how a referendum on abortion would pass.
I know a good few people who supported same sex marriage but wouldn't support abortion. I think the majority of the NO vote in the marriage referendum would also vote No to abortion and it would be very close.

It would depend how it's worded. If you were to allow abortion for rape and fatal abnormalities it would pass no bother. Abortion on demand would probably be a different result. I think part of being a good Christian, indeed a good human, is having a bit of empathy and respect for those who are in these situations and doing what you can to ease their burden.

freshpopcorn

eviltwin wrote: »

It would depend how it's worded. If you were to allow abortion for rape and fatal abnormalities it would pass no bother. Abortion on demand would probably be a different result. I think part of being a good Christian, indeed a good human, is having a bit of empathy and respect for those who are in these situations and doing what you can to ease their burden.

I'd agree with you about how it was worded would play a big part in it. I'd say it would pass fatal abnormalities. I wouldn't be sure about cases of rape because it would turn into a campaign of people saying in order to get an abortion all you've got to do say you were raped. It would be a very messy referendum.

wokingvoter

I think a lot of people could possibly agree with abortion up to 9 weeks possibly but feel quesy and very uneasy with anything more then that.
It started with 10 weeks I think in the UK and it was pushed and pushed to 24 weeks now which is causing slot of unease
Of course full term abortions are murder under any circumstances and unjustifiable
Of course Catholics must vote no but Catholics are human and will do whatever they choose
I think it would be close but the no side will win
Irish people don't want abortion on demand

Absolam

I don't think a Catholic could support abortion (at least, a Catholic who fully subscribed to the teachings of the Catholic Church), insofar as favouring it occurring in any circumstances other that where it happens as a necessary consequence of saving the life of the mother. But a Catholic could certainly vote in favour of allowing abortion, and still be a Catholic. They'd simply be in a state of sin (presuming that voting to allow abortion makes them an accomplice to the canonical crime of procuring an abortion) until they repented and were absolved; how grave that state of sin would be might be an interesting question, but my first impression is it could be sufficient to justify Latae sententiae excommunication.

Absolam

hinault wrote: »

Those clergy who did vote in favour of homosexual marriage have automatically excommunicated themselves. Therefore any sacraments that these clergy dispense are invalid.

Do you have a Canonical reference for that?

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

The Catholic Church opposes abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage.

A Catholic voting to support any of these concepts excommunicates themselves from the Church.

While you think this I've not seen the church kick anyone out for voting yes in May 2015, so its evident that the Catholic church doesn't agree with you on this matter.

One thing that is evident from your posts, you don't want people in the catholic church, you seem to want mindless drones unable to think for themselves and just fall inline with everything and never question church decisions.

We've had that in the catholic church in Ireland before, it didn't work out well for thousands of women and children over the decades. So nobody will be rushing back to those dark evil twisted times anytime soon.

El_Duderino 09

freshpopcorn wrote:

I know Catholics supported marriage equality but I know where I was from the church didn't make a big deal out of it they basically advised people what how to vote but they didn't tell them. However I'm not getting the same feeling from them regarding abortion. It almost compared to murder. I hope that makes sense!

SINCE the referendum, the catholics have changed their tune. Before the referendum allowing gays to marry was a dreadful thing. The catholics will adapt to their surroundings. Their first duty is to survive.

Now, catholics say abortion in akin to murder and is unacceptable under any circumstance. If abortion were to pass they would pretend they always made an exception for rape and incest.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

While you think this I've not seen the church kick anyone out for voting yes in May 2015, so its evident that the Catholic church doesn't agree with you on this matter.

Being excommunicated is not being kicked out though; it's evident that you're mixing yourself up on this matter

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Being excommunicated is not being kicked out though; it's evident that you're mixing yourself up on this matter

They've still not done it though,.
The most the church has tried to do is make pathetic attempts to blackmail some TD's back in 2013 if they voted in favor of changes to our abortion laws.

But like so many things (including that the church threatening that they would stop allowing the state marriage part to take place in churchs if marriage equality passed) the church didn't follow through on.

So we're back to the situation that they've not excommunicated anyone for voting yes.

GerB40

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If Ireland was to have a referendum in the morning about legalising abortion in Ireland could a Catholic support it?
I'm guessing they couldn't. Or could they support it certain circumstances such as if the woman's life was at risk or fatal fetal abnormalities?

I know this is a serious issue but to quote Fr.Dougal "What about not eating meat on Fridays? How come that's Ok now but it wasn't back then? Did people who ate meat on Fridays back then all go to hell or what? I mean, it's mad".
I believe living your life and basing your opinions on scripture is fine as long as you're not affecting other people's lives.The 3500-4000 women that travelled to Britain for abortions last year were certainly affected by Ireland's abortion laws.
If you're a Catholic and you eat meat on a Friday then you've already made a decision based on you own opinions rather than the Bibles. Using that logic, if you feel that abortion should be a womans right then vote with your morals in mind, not how your religious book tells you.

El_Duderino 09

GerB40 wrote:

I know this is a serious issue but to quote Fr.Dougal "What about not eating meat on Fridays? How come that's Ok now but it wasn't back then? Did people who ate meat on Fridays back then all go to hell or what? I mean, it's mad". I believe living your life and basing your opinions on scripture is fine as long as you're not affecting other people's lives.The 3500-4000 women that travelled to Britain for abortions last year were certainly affected by Ireland's abortion laws. If you're a Catholic and you eat meat on a Friday then you've already made a decision based on you own opinions rather than the Bibles. Using that logic, if you feel that abortion should be a womans right then vote with your morals in mind, not how your religious book tells you.

Catholics can still behave in accordance with their religion by simply not getting an abortion.

For them, this referendum would be about catholics telling the whole country that everyone has to live by their moral code.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

They've still not done it though,.
The most the church has tried to do is make pathetic attempts to blackmail some TD's back in 2013 if they voted in favor of changes to our abortion laws.

Done what? Excommunication latae sententiae doesn't require any act by the Church, it's incurred simply by the commission of the sin.

Cabaal wrote: »

But like so many things (including that the church threatening that they would stop allowing the state marriage part to take place in churchs if marriage equality passed) the church didn't follow through on. So we're back to the situation that they've not excommunicated anyone for voting yes.

As for that I don't think they ever said they'd excommunicate anyone for voting yes; I stand to be corrected.

beach_walker

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now, catholics say abortion in akin to murder and is unacceptable under any circumstance. If abortion were to pass they would pretend they always made an exception for rape and incest.

No, they really wouldn't. And you're deluded if you think that.

I know lots on your side like to point to the Marriage Referendum and say it'd be the same, it would not. You mention "murder" in your post, well this issue is literally a life and death one. To think people will class it in the same respect as two men getting married is just wrong.

For them, this referendum would be about catholics telling the whole country that everyone has to live by their moral code.

And the assumption that everyone who opposes abortion is a Catholic... Suits the agenda I suppose.

El_Duderino 09

beach_walker wrote:

I know lots on your side like to point to the Marriage Referendum and say it'd be the same, it would not. You mention "murder" in your post, well this issue is literally a life and death one. To think people will class it in the same respect as two men getting married is just wrong.

Just think back to 6 months before the marriage referendum. The things hay were said back then we're very different to today. It would look like outrageous hyperbole in the light of catholics opinions now. Of course they would change their minds. Subtly and over time but it would be exactly the same as the shift since the marriage referendum. You'll have forgotten all about it, the same way you probably forgot all about the anti gay rhetoric of the last few years.

beach_walker wrote:

And the assumption that everyone who opposes abortion is a Catholic... Suits the agenda I suppose.

That's not what I said though.

Let me spell it out really clearly. The catholics who vote no because their religion says so, will be voting to impose their moral standards on the whole country. There is no bite in the opposite direction to force catholics to do anything that is against their religious doctrine. Very simple concept. Can you confirm that you understood?

Cabaal

beach_walker wrote: »

And the assumption that everyone who opposes abortion is a Catholic... Suits the agenda I suppose.

Thats not what El_Duderino 09 said, but sure lets look at it for a moment.
By far and above the so called "pro-life" groups in Ireland such as Youth Defense, The Life Institute etc have a catholic religious basis.

They are either directly linked (by funding or they are in the same offices as Lolek Ltd etc) or they are openly religious,

It would be pretty accurate to say that the majority of those against allowing abortion in any situation (rape, incest etc) are against it for a religious basis.

We've seen back in 2013 that the Catholic church is totally against abortions in rape or incest cases, but other religious groups are far more open to change in that regard.

Based on the census the biggest religious group is Catholic so its pretty accurate to say that if somebody is against abortion they are statistically likely catholic.

beach_walker

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just think back to 6 months before the marriage referendum. The things hay were said back then we're very different to today. It would look like outrageous hyperbole in the light of catholics opinions now. Of course they would change their minds. Subtly and over time but it would be exactly the same as the shift since the marriage referendum. You'll have forgotten all about it, the same way you probably forgot all about the anti gay rhetoric of the last few years.

I fundamentally disagree. Go to any country with abortion available (on demand or whatever), see what the local Catholic churches think of the situation.

Can you confirm that you understood?

I think I'll leave it there with you tbh.

Speedwell

Baby steps. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34118105 (for those who've been living under a rock, or who have just given up on caring about anything having to do with religion altogether)

There are anti-abortion atheists, too. The determining factor is not so much religion as it is whether the voter believes that people have a right to make their own decisions (including making their own mistakes, if applicable). When I was a religious virgin teenager, my stand could best be described as, "It makes me really sad that anyone would have an abortion, but it's none of my business really; I can best serve them by being there to offer forgiveness and encouragement later". Hell of a presumptuous and naive way to think, but not altogether without compassion.

intheclouds

beach_walker wrote: »

No, they really wouldn't. And you're deluded if you think that.

Someone is certainly deluded.

I am old enough to remember a friend who became a single mother and the parish priest refusing to baptise the baby because it was illegitimate. They dont make a fuss about such matters these days.

They change their tune when it suits them.

Abortion should be legal, safe and available on demand.

If you dont agree with abortion, dont get one.

Cabaal

beach_walker wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree. Go to any country with abortion available (on demand or whatever), see what the local Catholic churches think of the situation.

You might disagree but history speaks for itself,
The catholic church flip flops on lots of issues, it was previously against women's suffrage/women’s liberation movement as it believed women's place was in the home etc,

Pope Pius XI previously condemned women’s liberation, he arguing it would produce a false redirection from women's true identity as mothers and homemakers.

I just love his quote:

Woman can never be man's equal and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics. – Pope St. Pius X

But as we know The Vatican completely flip flopped on the issue.

Right now its early days for marriage equality but they'll change their stance on that, it might take 10, 30 or 100 years but it'll happen.

Failing to do so will risk them being seen like we look at a person today who says they hate black people or they think black people should have less rights then white people (against mixed race marriages etc). It might be a hard reality for the church to deal with but people won't any anything to do with such a bigoted organization as time moves on, much like we'd think its sexist as hell if it was still against women voting.

Surely we can all agree that the church's position on women voting and women’s liberation was wrong and short sighted? After all it would be unthinkable if the church still had such a backward stance,

Cabaal

intheclouds wrote: »

I am old enough to remember a friend who became a single mother and the parish priest refusing to baptise the baby because it was illegitimate. They dont make a fuss about such matters these days.

Don't be too sure,
I know a women who went to baptise their kid around 10 years ago and the local priest refused as she was unmarried and father wasn't around. She had to find a different priest.

I will say the priest in question is extremely odd, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he still represents the catholic church in the local community.

El_Duderino 09

beach_walker wrote:

I think I'll leave it there with you tbh.

I'll take it you culdnt grasp the difference. Fair enough.

hinault

Absolam wrote: »

Being excommunicated is not being kicked out though; it's evident that you're mixing yourself up on this matter

Mixed up doesn't begin to explain it.

Excommunication is the result of a conscious and consenting act by a person.

The person consents to act in a way which violates the moral law and thereby excludes themselves from the Church and therefore they excommunicate themselves from the Church.

hinault

intheclouds wrote: »

Someone is certainly deluded.

I am old enough to remember a friend who became a single mother and the parish priest refusing to baptise the baby because it was illegitimate. They dont make a fuss about such matters these days.

They change their tune when it suits them.

Abortion should be legal, safe and available on demand.

If you dont agree with abortion, dont get one.

The baby isn't illegitimate.

No baby brought in to this world is responsible for the actions of their, in this case, "parents".

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

The baby isn't illegitimate.

No baby brought in to this world is responsible for the actions of their, in this case, "parents".

Why did you put parents in inverted commas like that?

Speedwell

I read it as a snide comment directed toward the presumably uninvolved parent. I could be wrong about that.

intheclouds

hinault wrote: »

The baby isn't illegitimate.

No baby brought in to this world is responsible for the actions of their, in this case, "parents".

The baby in this case is now a robust young man in his 20s and I can assure you, being born outside of marriage certainly marked him as illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church at that time.

What are you trying to say by putting parents into inverted commas? Are you suggesting his parents were not his biological parents? Or that they werent really parents in some other sense? They loved him, raised him, fed him, watered him, did all the normal parental stuff - so that cant be it?

intheclouds

Speedwell wrote: »

I read it as a snide comment directed toward the presumably uninvolved parent. I could be wrong about that.

What uninvolved parent?

Single mother - they werent married. They werent together after the child was born but they did co-parent successfully.

Speedwell

intheclouds wrote: »

What uninvolved parent?

Single mother - they werent married. They werent together after the child was born but they did co-parent successfully.

Ok, I did misunderstand that. My apologies.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

No baby brought in to this world is responsible for the actions of their, in this case, "parents".

That's strange,
That's not the stance taken by the church when they effectively stole baby's away from single mothers and sold them for profit to good fine catholic couples (with zero vetting in many instances).

El_Duderino 09

A perfect example of the change in tune.

There's a scene in reeling in the years which covers this exact point. It was a radical notion not to hold the children as illegitimate.

Times move on, social norms change. The catholics will change with them. Slowly enough to make it possible to deny they were ever different.

hinault

intheclouds wrote: »

The baby in this case is now a robust young man in his 20s and I can assure you, being born outside of marriage certainly marked him as illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church at that time.

What are you trying to say by putting parents into inverted commas? Are you suggesting his parents were not his biological parents? Or that they werent really parents in some other sense? They loved him, raised him, fed him, watered him, did all the normal parental stuff - so that cant be it?

These "parents" conceived their child out of wedlock. That's why.

The baby wasn't illegitimate.
The "parents" were.

Speedwell

hinault wrote: »

These "parents" conceived their child out of wedlock. That's why.

The baby wasn't illegitimate.
The "parents" were.

Your disdain for the way in which the child was conceived does not render the parents non-parents. Cop on.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A perfect example of the change in tune.

I disagree.

No baby can be held responsible for the circumstances of their conception and birth.

intheclouds

hinault wrote: »

These "parents" conceived their child out of wedlock. That's why.

The baby wasn't illegitimate.
The "parents" were.

Again, the church has changed its tune on illegitimacy regardless of who you wish to convey the illegitimacy on.

I still dont understand why you are putting the word parents into inverted commas? Are you trying to say that they werent THE parents or they werent parents? They were both.

Penny Tration

hinault wrote: »

These "parents" conceived their child out of wedlock. That's why.

The baby wasn't illegitimate.
The "parents" were.

Do you understand what the use of inverted commas is for?


They're not "parents." They're parents.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

These "parents" conceived their child out of wedlock. That's why.

The baby wasn't illegitimate.
The "parents" were.

So people who have children outside a marriage are quasi parents or poor example of parenting? Is that what your passive aggressive quotation marks mean?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

These "parents" conceived their child out of wedlock. That's why.

The baby wasn't illegitimate.
The "parents" were.

you realise that marriage is not a requirement to be a parent?

hinault

Speedwell wrote: »

Your disdain for the way in which the child was conceived does not render the parents non-parents. Cop on.

The "parents" conceived their child in illegitimacy.

Penny Tration

hinault wrote: »

The "parents" conceived their child in illegitimacy.

If you're using inverted commas correctly, you are implying that the parents are not parents.


If they're not the parents, who are? Or was the child another immaculate conception?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

The "parents" conceived their child in illegitimacy.

and that doesn't negate their parentage of the child.

It's somewhat silly to suggest otherwise, as you seem to be doing.