Are Pro-"Choice" "catholics" Heretics?

[Cam42]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jan 8 2006, 11:18 PM']YOu believe Matthew 5:27-30 to be the inspired Word of God, but you can not say you believe what Christ teaches in Matthew 5:27-30?  Why because I ask for a yes or no?  Or maybe it is just because I asked...  It was not a "poll" would you please just answer the question.  Do you believe what Christ teaches in Matthew 5:27-30?

Again I ask for your name or stop calling me by mine, you inslut me when you do without giving me yours, but it maybe you know this and that is why you do it.

My view is in line with the Church.
[right][snapback]849959[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your view is not in line with the Church David. Sorry, Try again.

Also, thus far you are only giving the opinion of one bishop. How about giving substantive proof from the Magisterium.

I will say this one more time. I accept the whole of Scripture to be the inspired Word of God.

[Cam42]

This has turned into a circular argument.

I have offered valid and sound logic. I have offered proof and support of my position. David has done neither.

Until David decides to actively and adequately defend his position, this thread is a dead topic.

Substantial proof has been given that abortion is not a heresy, but rather it is a mortal sin. There is a sense of obstinancy that is causing this impasse. I am sorry that David refuses to see the truth.

Unlike him, there is nothing more to say, which has not already been said. I suppose I could start saying "My view is better than yours," then stick my tongue out, but I don't need to do that. The Church's view speaks for itself. I merely defended it.

I am out.

[jmjtina]

Good points Cam.

I fear that most of the Church is poorly catechized overall in most of what plagues and fuels this Culture of Death we live in today.

[qfnol31]

[quote]Abortion is Mortal sin, support and prataking in abortion is HERESY!!![/quote]

This is a rhetorical question for you, but I'm wondering if you've ever sinned.

I have a feeling that your sins didn't make you a heretic, but they were wrong just the same.

What you've essentially done is equated heresy and sinning. Do you see what I'm talking about?

[KnightofChrist]

Yes... I have sinned... I have sinned against you all... I have been far to forcefull in my comments. Because of my forcefullness no one believes me or understands me, and I have only myself to blame. I blame myself for you all not believe'n what is heresy, what man would believe a fool like me the way I've spoken. I hope Almighty God has mercy on my Soul. I tried to hard, let angry take over. I know with all my heart partaking in abortion if by support or the being in the act itself for the person is heresy, and that is Truth. But I have failed to prove it to you all, I have failed to prove The Truth. I wish I was wiser than I am... I wish I knew better ways of proving the Truth but I have failed, and have dishonnered myself... not because I am wrong but because I have gone the wrong way in proving the Truth... Cam I know I was very rude in asking for you real name... I do not know why you would not give it. It doesnt matter... I want you to know and I mean this the real reason I wanted it was so I could pray for you in my prays at night and all threw the day... but I shall still pray for you, and for everyone at phatmass.

I do weep for the souls I have lead away for Truth, because of my anger in trying to prove it. I weep more for the Unborn that will die because of those that support abortion [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/weep.gif[/img]

I can barely see threw my tears now... I resign as a phatmass member... may Almighty God have mercy on my soul.

God Bless you all, forgive me.

[mod]edit[/mod]

[qfnol31]

[quote]Yes... I have sinned... I have sinned against you all... I have been far to forcefull in my comments. Because of my forcefullness no one believes me or understands me, and I have only myself to blame. I blame myself for you all not believe'n what is heresy, what man would believe a fool like me the way I've spoken.[/quote]

I do not think you were too forceful. I hope you don't resign, at least not yet.

I think that this is a good place to begin again and try to work from a fresh new start, if you're willing.

[Cam42]

I'm sorry that you feel that you need to leave. That is never a good thing. However, you are going to remain hard of heart and not open your heart, perhaps you are not in the right place to debate this topic.

There are many other places to be here at phatmass. There is open mic, there is the apologetics board, where you can learn.

However, if you feel that you must leave, then I will wish you well. I will pray for you and I will hope that you find the peace that you are looking for. I fear though, that no matter where you go, you will find the same resistance. Opinion does not make up the teaching of the Church. Objective truth does. That is the great difference between the Catholics and almost all Protestant denominations.

I have not given you my opinion once. Do you realize that? I simply uphold said objective truth.

God Bless and may the wind be at your back.

[rkwright]

not to rehash old battles, but I think this debate went on the wrong arguments. On page 1 or 2 I think is where the real argument lies, but for some reason it was jettisoned a long time ago...

Here would be my argument
1- Right to life is truth of the Church (CCC 2274)
2- Pro-Choice (some at least) deny this truth
3- Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;
4- Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;

Now Cam brought up incredulity vs heresy... Sadly I don't know enough about the difference between the two. In my CCC it says the willful refusal to assent to it. How is this different from obstinate denial?

The second argument would be against that Right to Life is a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith". I'm still learning about the degrees truth (I posted in the Q\A about this) but is right to life not one of these truths?

[JP2Iloveyou]

Here's a question to consider. Does it really matter? Certainly I agree with Cam that obtaining an abortion is not a heresy. Perhaps an argument could be made that supporting the "right" to an abortion is a heresy, but I would think that that would get into the differences among natural, moral, and divine law and would require more knowledge of moral theology than a cursury reading of Veritatis Splendor can provide.

In any event, regardless as to whether or not abortion is heresy, we all know and can agree that it is wrong. I really fail to see what all the fuss is about. I do know that is very serious to label someone a heretic, especially when one does not have the proper ecclesial authority to do so. The point I'm trying to make is exactly what our Lord said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Of course, he was saying this in the context of showing that he was not driving out demons by the Prince of Demons. However, the saying still applies. If we are going to accept the Church's mission to evangelize the whole world, to spread the Gospel to all nations, we as Catholics need to stop fighting amongst ourselves. The internal arguments among Catholics make me sick to my stomach. We need to stop wasting time on supid, meaningless arguing that does nothing to further the kingdom of God. Imagine if all of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics were devoted to furthering the Kingdom of God in whatever capacity God was calling them to do so. Imagine a Church full of clergy, religious, and laity firmly committed to the spread of the Gospel in their dioceses, their parishes, their families, their places of work. For this to happen, we must stop fighting among ourselves, and instead devote that time and energy to spreading the Gospel because when we do fight and argue internally, it provides serious scandal to those whose faith is weak and to those who do not share our faith. We appear to be no more than Protestants. It looks as though we can't get straight what we believe. Fortunately, we have a divinely established Magisterium and the successor of Peter to guide us. I suggest we follow what they teach and then get on with the task of evangelizing.

[rkwright]

JPII I agree with you, and honestly I'm not too involved in this debate, I'm just looking for a little more understanding on the subject. Plz don't brush aside my questions as we shouldn't 'fight' amongst ourselves, I don't mean to fight at all. I think Cams position is the correct one, I just don't understand where the argument I laid out breaks down. Thats what I'm hoping\asking for... just seeking truth not fighting.

[qfnol31]

I like to discuss this type of thing because of the distinctions to be made.

I personally think it a denial of a charism not to let Catholics discuss things amongst themselves. And plus, this is a website of learning. I hope all come here in anticipation of learning something beyond what they know and not with the intention of showing off. That is why I continue to discuss.

[Cam42]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:52 PM']
Now Cam brought up incredulity vs heresy... Sadly I don't know enough about the difference between the two.  In my CCC it says the willful refusal to assent to it.  How is this different from obstinate denial? 

[right][snapback]850398[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2089']Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."[/quote]

There is your definition of incredulity, however, to properly understand it, we need to discuss all the various sins against faith. There are voluntary and involuntary doubt. Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. It is at this point that we can move toward understanding incredulity. When we speak of incredulity, it speaks of one who may or may not fully understand what the truth of the matter. Also, one who is incredulous may accept as true the issue at hand however, will not assent to it.

For example, a fallen away Catholic is most likely incredulous. He knows the truth of the sacraments and accepts them as true, however, through neglect of his faith, he refuses to assent. If he is not obstinate about this, then it cannot be any form of heresy, because it doesn't fulfill the criteria.

In the case of most who are in support of abortion, they are most likely incredulous. The reason is that they know the truth, but simply neglects this....he refuses to assent. The reason that most are not heretical is that they are not obstinate in their refusal. Why? Because they were not properly catechized. It can be argued that many "pro-choice Catholics" are not even incredulous, but rather suffer from either voluntary or involuntary doubt, as defined by the Catechism.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jan 4 2006, 01:24 PM']It is a disciplinary procedure intended to help bring people back into the heart of the Church.[right][snapback]845791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
agreed. whomever said....the Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:28 PM'][quote name='CCC #2089']Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."[/quote]

There is your definition of incredulity, however, to properly understand it, we need to discuss all the various sins against faith. There are voluntary and involuntary doubt. Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. It is at this point that we can move toward understanding incredulity. When we speak of incredulity, it speaks of one who may or may not fully understand what the truth of the matter. Also, one who is incredulous may accept as true the issue at hand however, will not assent to it.

For example, a fallen away Catholic is most likely incredulous. He knows the truth of the sacraments and accepts them as true, however, through neglect of his faith, he refuses to assent. If he is not obstinate about this, then it cannot be any form of heresy, because it doesn't fulfill the criteria.

In the case of most who are in support of abortion, they are most likely incredulous. The reason is that they know the truth, but simply neglects this....he refuses to assent. The reason that most are not heretical is that they are not obstinate in their refusal. Why? Because they were not properly catechized. It can be argued that many "pro-choice Catholics" are not even incredulous, but rather suffer from either voluntary or involuntary doubt, as defined by the Catechism.
[right][snapback]850948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


so a pro-choice catholic could be in heresy, if they knew that it was truth and say worked against it or denied it? would you say someone is obstinate in their refusal by openly working against it and denying it? Just as some could be could not even be incredulous but suffer from voluntary or involuntary doubt.

[Cam42]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 9 2006, 07:42 PM'][quote name='Cam42']There is your definition of incredulity, however, to properly understand it, we need to discuss all the various sins against faith.  There are voluntary and involuntary doubt.  Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.  Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.  It is at this point that we can move toward understanding incredulity.  When we speak of incredulity, it speaks of one who may or may not fully understand what the truth of the matter.  Also, one who is incredulous may accept as true the issue at hand however, will not assent to it.

For example, a fallen away Catholic is most likely incredulous.  He knows the truth of the sacraments and accepts them as true, however, through neglect of his faith, he refuses to assent.  If he is not obstinate about this, then it cannot be any form of heresy, because it doesn't fulfill the criteria.

In the case of most who are in support of abortion, they are most likely incredulous.  The reason is that they know the truth, but simply neglects this....he refuses to assent.  The reason that most are not heretical is that they are not obstinate in their refusal.  Why?  Because they were not properly catechized.  It can be argued that many "pro-choice Catholics" are not even incredulous, but rather suffer from either voluntary or involuntary doubt, as defined by the Catechism.
[right][snapback]850948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so a pro-choice catholic could be in heresy, if they knew that it was truth and say worked against it or denied it? would you say someone is obstinate in their refusal by openly working against it and denying it? Just as some could be could not even be incredulous but suffer from voluntary or involuntary doubt.
[right][snapback]851006[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think so. Looking back to the letter which I quoted earlier, that language was disavowed by Msgr. DiNoia. The differentiation is that abortion is not a heresy, it is a mortal sin. And support for that falls under the same scope, not something separate, as defined by Canon Law and the Catechism. The accepted teaching is that one who formally supports abortion and/or procures an abortion is excommunicated; this falls under the same Canon. This is not a separate Canon which spells out the excommunication. So, both are considered formal participation in abortion and the excommunication is incurred in the same manner.

The reason being is that the act of abortion is murder. It is an action that is gravely immoral.

Here is a great way to look at it, at first glance the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2272) seems clear: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life." As many faithful Catholics see it, a vote for legal abortion, or for the funding of abortions, constitutes formal cooperation in the act. Thus many people believe that a pro-abortion Catholic politician incurs excommunication.

Phil Gray, a canonist in Ohio, explains:
[quote]Canonically speaking, "formal cooperation" involves the doctor who performs the abortion, the nurse who assists, the woman having the abortion, the man who agrees to take his wife or girlfriend, the person who drives the woman to the clinic--and even that last one is questionable. With legislators, what you have is probably best termed "material cooperation."[/quote]

Edward Peters, professor of canon law for the Institute of Pastoral Theology at Ave Maria University in Ypsilanti, Michigan, agrees:
[quote]You can only incur excommunication for a specific offense.  Although having an abortion can result in an excommunication, governmental support for abortion is not a similar offense.[/quote]

Some pro-life activists make the argument that a vote for taxpayer funding of abortion is a specific act, enabling poor women to procure abortions. That, they argue, is formal cooperation. But Peters replies:
[quote]People who make that argument are possibly using Canon 1329 [which prescribes excommunication for accomplices in such offenses as abortion], and are trying to characterize these people as accomplices. The problem is that in order to be an accomplice to an action, you have to be able to show that, but for this vote that freed up X number of dollars, this abortion would not have taken place. What if the bill passes by two votes? Whose vote do you blame?[/quote]

Peters also makes a more general point about the interpretation of canon law:
[quote]Canon 18 is clear that whenever you're talking about sanctions, you have to read those canons very narrowly, as narrowly as can reasonably be interpreted and still mean something.[/quote]

Germain Grisez, a noted Christian ethicist at Mount St. Mary's College in Emmitsburg, Maryland, and one of my professors, believes that anyone who supports legal abortion should reconsider seeking public office. And he rejects the notion that a public official could be personally opposed to abortion, yet support the legality of the procedure:

[quote]If they say "I'm personally opposed, but. . . ," it seems to me that maybe they're being insincere and saying this because it's politically advantageous. On the other hand, if they're sincere in this, it seems to me they're confused. Opposition to abortion is not a matter of taste. If one is personally opposed to it, it is because one recognizes that it is the killing of an unborn individual and a grave injustice is involved. If someone thinks otherwise, they're deeply confused. It seems to me that someone that badly confused about something that obvious or who is insincere is not a trustworthy person to hold any public office.[/quote]

Part of the reason that it is so hard to deem any of this heresy is that in order to impose such a penalty, the strictest view must be applied. And the Vatican, who does not interfere often in local churches will leave this to the local Ordinary to deal with.

Charles Wilson states:
[quote] Nonetheless, it is with the bishops themselves that the real power resides, and few bishops in recent memory have taken action against public dissenters. One exception was Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, who in the mid-1990s excommunicated members of Catholics for a Free Choice. Just prior to the 2000 election, the late Bishop James McHugh of the Diocese of Rockville Center, New York, directed his pastors to remove from any parish position those who held pro-abortion views; he explicitly included public figures who claimed to be "personally opposed" but showed themselves--as he put it--"unwilling to integrate their moral principles with civic responsibilities."[/quote]

Also we have to understand that if there is an excommunication it is [i]in latae[/i]. The onus is on the person who is excommunicated to obey the legislation. There will be no attempt to make a list. If a person approaches Holy Communion, the priest must assume that the person has repented and made an attempt to rectify their situation.

Another aspect is this, if a bishop imposes any form of discipline on a pro-abortion Catholic politician, that individual could quickly attain the status of a martyr­figure among dissenting Catholics and other proponents of abortion. For some Catholic officials, defiance of the Church is a carefully calculated political stance.

David Carlin has an interesting perspective on that issue, as a former majority leader of the Rhode Island state Senate and a member of Democrats for Life. Of one prominent pro-abortion Catholic politician from Rhode Island, he says:
[quote] He could get elected here as a pro­lifer, but that would bring him grief from the fanatics on the other side, and it would ruin his chances to climb even further up the national Democratic ladder. Morally and religiously, he has taken the wrong stand, but politically he has taken the smart stand.[/quote]

Carlin observes that while many Catholic constituents disapprove of the official's stance on abortion, they none­the-less continue to cast ballots for him. In fact, he sees this voting pattern repeated regularly--not only in Rhode Island but all across America. The net result, he says, is:
[quote]The more Catholics a state has, the more likely it will send pro-choicers to Washington, and the fewer Catholics it has, the less likely.[/quote]