A massive 98%. Obviously the majority of Catholic women don't believe that life begins at conception, or else they wouldn't be using a pill that has the potential to kill a 'baby'. But it doesn't stop there. Caholics also want hospitals to provide emergency contraception for rape victims, and for hospitals to be forbidden from denying medications and procedures on the basis of religious beliefs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-obrien/catholics-birth-control-contraception_b_1110212.html It would be interesting to know how many Catholics support abortion. I admit this article surprised me. I am not surprised to know that most Catholic women use hormonal birth control, but I was surprised at what the rest of the article mentioned. It seems that Catholics are very liberal when it comes to contraception - so why does the Catholic church not pay attention? And do US bishops wish to deny Catholic women birth control - as mentioned?
Do you know how many people claim to be "Catholic" but don't bother with going even to Mass but once or twice a year--(Easter and/or Christmas)? That's at least as much of a scandal in the Church!
A significant number of Catholics support choice. http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/default.asp Catholics for Choice believes in a world where everyone has equal access to the full range of reproductive health-care servicesincluding access to safe and legal abortion services and affordable and reliable forms of contraception. CFC works to change the conversation regarding sexual and reproductive rights to one where the individual conscience of each person is recognized as the keystone of moral decision making
But hey...Huffpo? The original study comes from Guttmacher which is the step-sister of Planned parenthood. Not exactly entirely without agenda... But anyway--it doesn't surprise me that people sin--even Catholics.
This group wants to call themselves Catholic, but not be Catholic. There is NO WAY TO DENY that to be a Catholic in good conscience one must reject abortion in all forms. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm Abortion 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. 2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82 2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83 "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84 "Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.
Ms. Childs Graham is simply mistaken in her suggestion that her position is acceptable. Certainly the Church "allows" people to believe as they wish--no one HAS to be Catholic--but the Church's stance is that she needs to repent her sin and reconcile. Every person has free will--and every person has the freedom to turn to sin or turn away from it. However, it is simply erroneous to believe that one is NOT sinning in supporting abortion in any way. Ms. Childs Graham should read the Chatecism concerning conscience, not take a portion out of context and claim it absolves her guilt. She is correct she has the freedom to sin--but she is not free from sin. III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. 1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts. 1789 Some rules apply in every case: - One may never do evil so that good may result from it; - the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56 - charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58 IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. 1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience. 1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60 The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The main part that condemns Ms. Childs Graham reasoning is the part I highlighted in red. As already noted in the part I quoted about abortion, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." Thus, Ms. Childs Graham does not have a "well-formed" conscience as she claims. She is in grave sin.
If a Catholic woman was pregnan but the pregnancy would kill her, you mean that she is expected to simply sacrifice her life, and leave behind her husband and children because having lifesaving abortion is somehow a sin? That's ridiculous.
I don't believe it is expected of her , I am Catholic and I know someone who had the same exact situation and they had the abortion and the tubes were tied , they were not kicked out of Church , it is a personal thing between you and God . Most Priest I know back that at least in confidence My wife also used the Pill when we didn't want to be knocked up lol
I would have thought so, too. There are some situations when birth control and abortion is necessary, especially when its to save your life.
You would think even the Catholic church would allow an abortion to save the life of the woman, but that's not the case here. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/arizona-hospital-loses-catholic-status-over-abortion The irony here is that if she had died her fetus most likely would have died as well. So you'd have two deaths instead of one.
If an abortion is performed to kill a child in order to save another's life, that is impermissible. If, in the course of treatment, a child dies as an unintended but known consequence, then the treatment is morally permissible. The "treatment" for this woman was to kill her child. That is not morally permissible. To see what I believe to be more objective reporting--not because it's Catholic, but because it gives both sides of the issue equal weight and avoids judgmental language, SEE: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...-performed-abortion-may-lose-catholic-status/
Are they saying she didn't need the abortion to save her life then? Because from what I have read she was suffering from pulmonary hypertension and the pregnancy worsened it to the point that she would face imminent death. So I really don't understand why the religious officials did not see the abortion as a necessity to save her life. If she died her fetus would have died too and then you would have two deaths. And that would just be horrible especially knowing you could have saved one even if it was at the expense of the other (because in EITHER situation the fetus would die. An 11 week old fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb.)
The woman was 11 weeks pregnant. Preeclampsia doesn't develop until after 20 weeks--and it's early onset if it develops before 32 weeks. It was a separate medical issue unrelated to her pregnancy, pregnancy was not the CAUSE of her illness, so why is the treatment to terminate the pregnancy and kill the baby? Apparently there was some dissent as to the situation being as immediately dire as the media presents. Further, there was much more going on than this case--this was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Of course the only part that gets play in the media is the part (with ample slant) that would outrage the general public: http://www.speroforum.com/site/arti...he+%93Catholic%94+in+Catholic+Healthcare+West
She already had pulmonary hyper tension and the pregnancy worsened it. The abortion was definitely necessary to save her life. There is no way to treat preeclampsia though except to deliver the fetus and provide anti-seizure medication to the woman during the process. http://pregnancy.emedtv.com/preeclampsia/can-preeclampsia-be-treated.html And I suppose that is their choice really. But I don't understand why people put their trust in non-medical religious authorities over the actual medical professionals who are there with you every day and who know and understand what sort of care you need even if it is morally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic church. (The same could be said of Jehova's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions. Imagine if they ran a hospital!)
obviously, it is in her private medical charts, but we don't have access to those. Medical management of hypertension does not involve abortion. Yeah--she had a bad hand dealt her. But her baby had a worse one OBVIOUSLY. The Church believes there is more than this life, and so the first concern is the soul. I'm sure they would agree that the medically expedient procedure if the goal is to save the mother's life at all costs would be killing the baby. However--medically expediency isn't of paramount concern to the Catholic Church--morally correct action according to right reason is. She could have gone to a different hospital that was NOT a Catholic hospital. .
Her baby was going to die regardless. Why have two deaths when you can clearly save one of them? She's also a mother of four. So Catholics would prefer she leave her born children motherless for the sake of their absurd and obviously life-threatening morals? She was rushed to that hospital. I don't know why she couldn't be transferred to another one but that is the one she very unfortunately ended up at. Thankfully the medical staff had the moral and ethical integrity to do what they could to save her life. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...-hospital-stop-providing-lifesaving-abortions This is why religion needs to stay far, far, FAR away from running hospitals. Sure if the individual wants to deny a certain procedure based on religious grounds that's fine. But if I am rushed to the nearest hospital and it just happens to be a Catholic hospital or any religiously bound hospital I don't believe it is right for them to deny me or anyone life-saving treatment simply because they believe it is morally wrong.
She was only 11 weeks pregnant.....Plenty of people with Pulmenary hypertension get pregnant--and yes, it's risky, but...how do you KNOW tht the baby would die, or that the mother would die, or both would die? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in medicine will claim 100% probability. Could you link me to this info...I can't seem to find it. The link you provided in this post of yours is just too biased to assume credible. If they had the time to convene an ethics panel...that seems like it wasn't an "emergency." From other sources, the woman was terminally ill already. http://ncronline.org/news/no-direct-abortion-phoenix-hospital-theologian-says All around--this is just a tragic case--mother and child were dying--why kill the baby prematurely? There was no good done by killing life. As evidenced in the controversy, only bad came about. The woman was terminal. There is no "rushing" in cases already determined to be terminal.
I was raised in a Catholic family, and attended 12 years of Catholic school, including 4 years of boarding school where we had to attend mass 4 days a week at 6:30 in the morning with the nuns watching us. I can assure you that most Catholic are not crazy, and that they do use birth control hormones, and. . .if they don't and get pregnant, they do resort (if that is the best solution for them) to early term abortion. Not all Catholics will admit to this. . .but I am not surprise with the 98% admitting that they would use contraception. Anything else is crazy.
Then they are sinning. Period. Matt.7 [13] "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Luke.13 [24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
You are in denial. May God have mercy on your soul should you die without repentance--for in fact you are guilty by offering false reasoning and promoting evil.
Thank you. I have a very special relationship with my personal-universal God, and I feel perfectly at peace! God himself (herself?) allows for miscariage. . .who are WE to make decisions for him. . .one way or another. I wish you good luck in your faith also, but I believe you are guilty of offering narrow minded interpretation of God's will that determine what is "evil" instead of promoting what is "good."
I hope and pray that you recognize that the life-giving God of the Universe is certainly not contrary to the logic of life. I am glad that you "feel" peace right now, but I wish you the peace that surpasses understanding. If you believe that God is in control, allow him to be in control by not offering influence through acting against life via abortifacient means.
