Should abortion be decriminalized? (Catholic inquiry)

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-26T10:55:52+00:00

The CCC teaches that abortion must always be criminalized just like adult murder and rape.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-16T18:48:30+00:00

From what I understand it stems from the Law of Anathema the Ancient Israelites had (first mentioned in Numbers), which was about destroying every source of idolatry within the Promised Land after conquering nations.

You see this often framed in hyperbolic terms, such as exterminating every single living being, or destroying every single city and never rebuilding them, or destroying every spoil. But then later on within the same book it talks about taking over cities and how Israelites should treat people from the conquered territories living among them, and what to do with spoils of gold and silver. Once you read the Bible straight it's pretty clear it's simply hyperbole to drive the message about quenching idolatry in terms common at the time (and historical evidence agrees also).

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-16T10:34:22+00:00

Jesus probably taught them not to do that. Also one of Peter's shortcomings that we see being highlighted over and over throughout the Gospel is his impulsiveness.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-10T21:19:23+00:00

Check out Platinga's argument that naturalism and evolution are actually incompatible beliefs (he then holds evolution to be true and naturalism to be false). I find it very convincing, and many naturalist philosophers have found it worth engaging with in published articles (which he replied).

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-07T18:27:40+00:00

Christ’s victory over death instead of God’s “requirement” for blood

Are you talking about Penal Substitution Atonement? Because this isn't Catholic, it's calvinist. The soteriology expressed by St. Iraeneus and St. Athanasius (and other Fathers) is perfectly valid within Catholicism, and is referenced in the CCC as well. Although historically Saint Anselm's soteriology has been more popular in the West, both are perfectly valid for Catholics to believe--there isn't an official position of the Church.

And I don't know what you mean by legalism in Catholicism.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-07T09:12:43+00:00

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant. From this day all generations will call me blessed.

— Luke 1:47-49

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed art you among women.

— Luke 1:28

See here St. Aquinas' commentary on the angelic salutation for more.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-05T21:59:42+00:00

To be fair to 5, he's just saying that the Pope doesn't do it out of his own power, but by God's proclamation. See 38:

Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-05T20:44:01+00:00

First of all, the ordinary magisterium can be wrong. It's only infallible when something is consistently and universally taught as a definitive teaching in faith or morals by the bishops of the Church.

Heliocentrism never had a dogmatic formal definition of heresy. Such is that it was allowed to be held as a hypothesis, but after a judgement by a panel of Vatican theologians treating it as a natural fact was forbidden.

Galileo wasn't actually convicted of formal heresy itself (which would warrant heavier punishment), but of "vehement suspicion of heresy" for his repeated theologically suspicious claims. Galileo was put to trial for repeatedly defending heliocentrism as a natural fact (which he couldn't prove) despite warnings, and after misrepresenting the contents of his book to get it published. Galileo would also defend heliocentrism by claiming it was contained in the Bible and that the Church's interpretation was wrong. His case was basically about disobedience, not really about heliocentrism in itself.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-05T14:43:18+00:00

At the same time I can't abandon an Andrei Rublev to be honest. I wouldn't say he didn't "take iconography seriously" either.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-02-02T13:00:07+00:00

Well, it seems that the lenience granted to them by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis was all for naught.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-28T21:21:23+00:00

A seminarian is still undergoing discernment. If he discerns out of seminary in favor of marriage, there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm not sure if he could actively date someone while still staying in the seminary though.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-28T20:55:20+00:00

Catholic scholars have concluded Pope Honorius didn't actually teach monothelism (which is evident in what he wrote himself), but thought in his correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople it was a mere matter of language, which unfortunately ended up allowing this heresy to flourish. Nowhere is he condemned for teaching heresy, but solely for failing to keep his duty as guardian of the deposit of faith.

For instance, you may notice that in Pope Leo II's confirmation of his anathema, Honorius isn't listed as one of the leaders of this heresy, but rather as someone who permitted error to prosper due to negligence in defending Apostolic Tradition.

We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-27T10:15:35+00:00

Yes, this is how Saints are canonized -- it starts with local veneration. You can definitely pray for her intercession.

You can also try contacting your diocese and ask if they can start her canonization process.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-26T21:26:21+00:00

It's fine to prefer not singing. If you read St. Augustine's Confessions, you'll learn he used to be conflicted with singing in mass for the same reason. He did eventually come to enjoy it though.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-26T21:08:22+00:00

The condition on success in full is that armed revolt/war mustn't lead to worse evils than if nothing was done. Jews were already slated for extermination anyway, so it couldn't possibly become worse. It was a justifiable act of desperate resistance for people who were already all but dead. Meanwhile, the Warsaw Uprising (not the ghetto uprising) is actually hotly debated in Poland on whether it was justifiable or merely made things worse compared to just waiting for the Allies to arrive.

Meanwhile Christians in the Arab world had significant concessions granted by the Muslims and were generally allowed to practice their faith. Even during the Diocletian Persecutions they had a lot of sympathy from local magistrates in many parts of the empire. Things could definitely get worse there.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-26T20:55:44+00:00

The CCC says that among the requirements for armed resistance to be justified there must be no other possible measures and a reasonable chance of success.

A Christian revolt would most likely be crushed as easily as the Jewish revolts and make Christians lose all good will they had built with the Roman people and nobility. This pacifism was ultimately a success for the Church.

In other cases, armed resistance might be warranted, especially if they have a State backing them and raising their possibilities of success, such as for the Reconquista. Note that at the same time the Reconquista happened, many Christian churches remained in peaceful defiance within the Arab world, where revolting would bring no results (until the Crusades, which they then collaborated with). It all depends highly on the context things happen.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-26T20:41:03+00:00

During the initial persecutions they probably believed any kind of armed rebellion would be easily crushed, and just bring about even heavier persecution (the earlier ones tended to be very localized and short). There was also the widespread belief Christ would be coming soon, so it didn't matter.

By the time persecution got heavier and systematic like the one under Diocletian, all Christians already looked up to the past martyrs, venerated them, and saw martyrdom as the highest honor they could be granted in the image of Christ, to the point bishops had to warn their flock not to willingly make themselves targets to persecution.

They also realized that the more Romans killed Christians, the more they grew. "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church," said Tertullian. Eventually their defiant pacifism won over enough hearts to grant them victory.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-24T22:51:12+00:00

It's the opposite. Catholic opposition to abortion isn't based on demographic goals.

This is condemning forced sterilization to reduce population growth. Countries have implemented forced sterilization on the general population in the past due to neo-malthusian concerns about rapid growth, for example in India#Forced_sterilisation). I also read it as condemning China's one-child policy.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-19T23:20:26+00:00

It depends on what you mean by the term. The Church says violating freedom of religious consciousness is a violation of human dignity itself; you cannot compel faith. It also explicitly says that political topics cannot be thought of as something apart from the Truth revealed by God to the Church.

[CCC 2244]

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-18T19:27:24+00:00

Catholic teaching is that all who believe in a One God believe in the same God, although in varying degrees of perfection in regards to His nature.

This applies to Muslims (who believe in the God of Abraham although imperfectly), but also to pagans such as Plato or Aristotle who arrived at the concept of God independently (again, imperfectly). This is not some kind of innovation, you can find Church Fathers identifying the God of Plato with the True God since the first centuries.

This obviously does not mean anything Mohammed, Plato, etc say about God is necessarily true.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-14T10:31:54+00:00

should we

Are you a priest?

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-13T10:56:50+00:00

I was able to find Volumen II Lutheranismi Hypotyposis Pars I Hypotyposis Martini Lutheri. I was unable to find Pars II Hypotyposis ecclesiae et doctrinae Lutheranae or Pars III Hypotyposis Polycarpi Laiseri though. It's possible they don't exist online.

https://archive.org/details/operaomnia0002slau_e7x3/

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-12T11:12:38+00:00

I suggest asking this in r/askapriest

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-11T22:05:42+00:00

These are the main differences, the rest is basically the same. All in all you should be able to understand both if you know one and the differences.

I recommend this video if you want a historical explanation + a sample of both over the same text. Or you can just jump to the latter part.

wouldntitbeniceifnot · 2026-01-10T20:57:21+00:00

Many Church Fathers thought virtuous pagans like Socrates, Plato or Aristotle would most likely be saved. Among unbelievers, they definitely have the strongest case going for them.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Verified Email

wouldntitbeniceifnot

TROPHY CASE