I'm Catholic, recently returned to the faith of my youth. I hope you'll hear me out on abortion.
Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2024, 06:31 PM - Edit history (2)
I'd also like to point out why neither Catholics nor Christianity is a monolith about abortion, and neither are the 48% of Democrats who are Christian. Apologies if the following seems obvious or repetitious.
First,
the majority of Catholics are pro-choice like the secular population. Because abortion is not biblical. That's explainable in its history -- why the church founded by the apostle Peter (as the historical Jesus made him the "rock on which I will build my church" ) and all the popes who succeeded him over 15 centuries, never called abortion murder until 1588 (Pope Sixtus). After that decree was deleted by the next pope (Urban VII) three years later, it wasn't again decreed murder for another 300 years.
Overall, across 266 popes in 1,991 years -- "infallible on matters of faith and morals" -- only 12 held abortion to be murder. Because 254 popes knew what the Word of God said.
Re Catholics
Second,
more Christian denominations are biblically pro-choice, whereas the Catholic Church's doctrine is not biblically based.
Why is Christianity not a monolith about abortion?
Again, because abortion is not biblical. Why? Because not a single version of the Christian Bible (Old & New Testament) uses the word abortion, or even refers to abortion as sin. It lists a LOT of sins, but abortion isn't one of them.
It is unreasonable to think that 40+ authors of the Bible (declared by church fathers as inspired by God) who knew about abortion (of course they did) thought that abortion was a grievous and unforgivable sin -- and somehow they just simply forgot to include that sin for a thousand years before Jesus? who came to fulfill all the law and the prophets? or that the NT writers forgot to quote Jesus about it after his death? Yes, it's unreasonable.
For all of the writers' quotes of Jesuss references to hell, if he had wanted to condemn abortion, he would have. And Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would help them ( NT writers ) remember everything he said and did. But they didn't even allude to anything about abortion. Jesus never once said when life begins. Not once.
Nor did any of New Testament writers themselves -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James -- declare when life begins. Only twice does the Old Testament say when life begins: once when God breathed life and soul into Adam & Eve, and next, when an unborn takes its first breath, then it gets a soul.
First breath is when life begins. That's it. That's what's in all versions of the Christian Bible. It was Hebrew law.
Third,
and bottom line, abortion is a made up sin. As shown above, six Christian denominations say that the Bible, their God's Word, has the final word, so they're pro-choice in that abortions are between women and God.
The other six denominations are anti-abortion per papal decree or church-based doctrine.
After years of reading the Bible, years of atheist research about abortion, it's my considered opinion that anti-abortion Christians -- and SCOTUS for that matter -- base their claims on historical patriarchal claims about women that Jesus never endorsed in word or deed. Patriarchy was pre-historical. Patriarchy existed across continents and civilizations before Moses. Nevertheless, pastors do endorse a thing called "biblical patriarchy."
But Jesus did not. He fulfilled the law and the prophets, then brought a new convenant for all humans.
The Dobbs legal decision was brought by patriarchal power worshippers -- the ADF legal group and a SCOTUS majority -- who believe their God and scripture are on their legal side.
But they are wrong. At the church/state level, their very Word of God-inspired book never mentions abortion, nevermind that it's a sin. Their Jesus acted toward women as spiritual equals to men. At the state level, 1st, 7th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights get stripped from child bearing women in all red patriarchal states.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor recently said to the other SC justices:
"How is your ruling anything but a religious view?"
It was a wrong religious view. It was a patriarchal view.
Thanks for reading this far. I'm just a Christian Democrat trying to live up to Jesus's 1st Great Commandment's "Love God ...with your whole mind..." part.
Thanks for reading.
elleng
(136,365 posts)VERY interesting.
AllaN01Bear
(23,127 posts)multigraincracker
(34,127 posts)The test for an unfaithful wife. The priest makes a potion to give the pregnant wife. If the husband is not the father, the fetus aborts.
Language may.very by Bible version.
multigraincracker
(34,127 posts)but I respect the Franciscans
Visited Assisi Italy and found St Frances and St Clare interesting for their devotion to the poor and animals.
The world is gray, not black and white.
ancianita
(38,690 posts)I hear you about the world.
I'd add that the first thousand years of a radicalness of god consciousness (since 41% of scientists are also Christian) means that binaries are out. Also that before chemist Jennifer Doudna atomically mapped RNA (the activator gene for inert DNA), Timothy Leary called it the "God gene."
We see that even Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are going to have to be rewritten, based on new studies of gravity and quantum physics. One might even say that all the universes that exist are what we puny humans still haven't even got an inkling of. The short name for all that 'gray' is what Carl Sagan referred to as 'God.' Besides a return to an organized faith, I'm into a similar awareness of cosmic holiness as that kind of consciousness, or spirit.
One love.
multigraincracker
(34,127 posts)to their own search for the truth. That is why I identify as a Democratic Secular Humanist.
DFW
(56,675 posts)Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it.
André Gide
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Glad you enjoyed it. I've got to get there myself one of these years.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Like I've said many times, everyone is welcome to post here so long as they follow our rules.
surfered
(3,333 posts).,.now if we could just convince the evangelicals to do what Jesus preached.
ancianita
(38,690 posts)Right??
I'd bet a month's salary that evangelicals are biblically illiterate. Surveys by Pew Research and Christianity Today come up with the same numbers -- 70%-80% of Christians don't read their Bibles -- God speaking to them through 40+ writers, most of whom didn't even know each other.
That's why I'd bet they don't understand Jesus, or their own religion -- just what they hear from intermediaries, and so are receptive to deceivers who present scapegoats to blame for what are not just political problems, or economic problems, but are their own spiritual problems. A fairly famous DC therapist once told me "there are two kinds of people -- those who have problems and know it, and those who have problems and don't know it."
So much strife, so little reading.
Wounded Bear
(60,723 posts)whether it is "ordained" by some religious authority or not. I also strongly believe that forcing a woman to take an unwanted pregnancy to term is the greater evil, especially if it endangers the mother's life and/or health.
I appreciate you bringing your logical analysis of the problem to us. I'm more of a secular humanist, I guess, though I avoid labels when I can. I do strongly believe in the separation of church and state, because without freedom from religion there is no freedom of religion. Passing such momentous legislation based on the mis-guided beliefs of a small segment of the population can't be allowed to fly.
ancianita
(38,690 posts)I was a secular humanist, too. I get it. Then I became an atheist. But last year, after having lost my husband, I was doing what I called "heart work." From there I decided to keep an open heart and accept an invite to join a few Christian women in a Bible study group, more to see if they were "Jesus Christians," maybe see how they squared with my past Catholic and Bible exposure. Boy, did I get woke. And so did they. They didn't know Jesus was the first to declare the separation of church and state, or that 48% of Democrats are Christian, and a few other things about past Christian presidents.
Gotta say, though, that the small segment you speak of isn't representative of the 49% of America that claims to be religious. Strongly agree with you that what they've done should never be allowed to fly.
RainCaster
(11,574 posts)I have many friends who have had abortions. They never approached it lightly, but very few ever regretted it.
ancianita
(38,690 posts)Back in 1969, when I went to see a priest about whether have an abortion (yeah, sounds crazy when I put it that way) told me that the Holy Spirit allows women to decide who comes into the world and who does not. I never forgot that, and I'm not paraphrasing. Beyond that there remains a biblical basis for saying that what women decide is between them and their God.
KJohnson
(33 posts)A human fetus which lacks a human soul is not yet a human being.
Church dogma was that ensoulment (when the human soul enters the fetus) was not until 90 to 120 days AFTER conception.
I've read that STILL IS dogma which the Church hides by equivocating on the phrase "human life" which can mean the life a a particular human (the life of Abraham Lincoln) OR cellular human life (Any living human body has cells which possess human life.)
ancianita
(38,690 posts)It's my understanding that the Catholic Church's position is that life begins at conception. Maybe you could post a link to support your claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
Biblically, abortion isn't relevant.
Only when an unborn draws breath could it be murdered -- a mortal sin and breaking of Commandment #5 of God's Ten Commandments -- the Law -- that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai around 13 centuries before Jesus. Anytime a preemie is born, its very breath makes it human with a right to life.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)This is a safe haven group. Non-Catholics are welcome to post here so long as they abide by our rules. Since you're new to the site, you might want to acquaint yourself with hem. They're pinned at the top.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2024, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)
ancianita
(38,690 posts)church growth, but the Reformation didn't drive that even though they existed in the same decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sixtus_V
I think the power drive of biblical patriarchy drove church leaders away from Jesus and toward the pride of spiritual superiority over women. Which is why Urban VII changed Sixtus' decree three years later, since that patriarchal drive toward spiritual superiority over women doesn't square at all with Jesus.
Even in prehistory, much suffering was caused by patriarchy's soft and hard force used to dominate and own women and children, rearing its ugly head with patriarchal asshole rantings under cover of religion. Fast forward to now, when it's even more apparent that they know (or know not) what they do and will be judged as they judge.
Jesus said, "Ye judge after the flesh. I judge no man." John 8:15
As for religious assholes, it's been ADF and their exploitative asshole oligarch funders that have driven long held -- but wrong -- belief about an invented sin into civil law. Many pastors know this. Many pastors speak out against this.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Warpy
(113,131 posts)and only pointed out where the line is.
Even Jesus knew that, giving to god' that which is god's and to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
But I get it, it's too much history for some.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)We've had some who think it's a free-for-all in here. So, I try and post reminders. I've seen your posts; I know your background and aren't offended by your comments at all. I have people in my life who feel the same way. Have a good day.
mokeyz
(54 posts)Beautifully thought out and written - I appreciate your thoughts.
ancianita
(38,690 posts)shrike3
(5,370 posts)Because you're new to the site, you might want to check out our rules. They're pinned at the top.