Catholics Will Lose More Than Evangelical Protestants In Their Alliance

Almost never talked about is the uncomfortable alliance between right wing Protestants and Catholics. We all know the Protestants showed up late in the anti abortion game. Both thought they could gain more than the other by teaming up. The truth is they have little in common.

Catholics claim their stand on birth control and abortion are based on theological principles worked out over hundreds of years. Though many of us roll our eyes at these ideas we all have to admit they are older and more comprehensive than those of conservative Protestants.

Conservative Protestantism was in favor of abortion only a few decades ago. I grew up in a conservative denomination and that denomination at that time favored abortion rights. It has always been my impression being for abortion rights back then was because Catholics were against it.

Eventually, TV evangelists saw money in being anti abortion and things changed. If there is more success in anti abortion court rulings or laws I am certain we will see split.

It will come about over punishment of women. The Catholic position has been carefully crafted to avoid the political pitfall of sending women to prison. It has a theological position that the woman is hapless and cannot be held responsible. The Church cleverly claims this is a legally defensible position. It has never explained how it would be defended.

When the angry Protestant religious right demands punishment for women Catholics will lose on abortion.

15 Responses

  1. Schurkey

    I don’t think you give enough credit to “incrementalism”.

    The “Catholic” position that women shouldn’t go to prison for getting an abortion will disappear as soon as abortion “rights” are more firmly restricted. The Church policy will always be one step beyond what is casually accepted by the majority, until it’s totalitarianism and a tyranny.

    For years, the only thing keeping Government honest was The Church. The only thing keeping The Church honest was the Government. As long as those two fought each other, the ordinary people stood a chance. When they colluded, it’s the Dark Ages, Inquisition, and every other horrible thing you can think of.

    Now that Big Business has bought-out Big Government and made it it’s own, there’s some merging of Church and State again…because in the end, what Big Business, The Church, and The Government ALL want is all the money on Earth, and all the power that goes with it, and Big Business knows how to set up mergers.

    We The People are in deep trouble.

    1. Schurkey 6:48 I don’t think you give enough credit to “incrementalism.

      You may be right. Conservative religion did not get in bed with business overnight. It happened little by little as business lobbyists courted the religious with “support lower taxes and we will be against gays and abortion.”

  2. Mike

    For a guy who claims there is no God, you sure claim to know a lot about the history of Christian Churches. Sorry, Jon. You are half right, as usual, which is your normal debate tactic. There was no need to have a nation wide pro-life movement until 1973, when seven unelected men in black robes came up with an obscure reference to “privacy” to justify the legalization of mass murder. It was in all the history books, so maybe you remember it Jon.

    Another half truth is that Protestant churches didn’t object to abortion. It was only those Protestants, who came to no longer believe that the Bible was the true, inerrant Word of God, that eventually started to condone abortion. This acceptance of disbelief did not happen overnight. The word used by Schurkey is spot on: Incrementalism.

    A good example of this is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). It is said to be the largest denomination of Lutheranism, but they are Lutheran in name only. That is because of their lack of Biblical belief. The three other larger Lutheran synods (LCMS, ELS, and Wisconsin) still hold to the inerrant Word of God and their stance on abortion has never changed. The same type of splintering has occurred in the other Protestant denominations, with the main point of contention being that churches stand on the Bible’s inerrancy.

    While it may be true that the doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism are diametrically opposed to each other, there are many basic beliefs that we have in common. It is based on these mutually shared Biblical beliefs, that we feel compelled to join together and object to the attempt in our society today to “normalize” behavior, that up until a few years ago, was viewed as abhorrent. Abortion, Gay Marriage, and LGBT are just a few of these.

    1. Mike 10:41 It was only those Protestants, who came to no longer believe that the Bible was true, inerrant word of God, that eventually started to condone abortion.

      In all due respect, that is bull $hit. I have posted articles from Christianity Today of that era stating clearly abortion should be available. I’m afraid you have fallen into the practice of making stuff up.

      1. Catcher

        @ 9;51; Jon; Neither you, Christianity Today, HuffPost re., Christian Post nor any other publication has the authority to be a spokesman for, or represent several churches, mine included. either in this era, “that era”, or the era before.

        Again you conflate. There are denominations that have NEVER NEVER approved of abortion. beyond a medically necessary procedure.
        If some protestant denomination did, that’s on them. Do not include others not so inclined.

  3. Mike

    Profanity? Really? Clearly, you don’t like any of your preconceptions to be challenged and are acted like a juvenile. Of course, it’s your blog so you can be as course and crude as you like. Since I don’t travel in the evangelical circles that an atheist like you apparently do, I must admit that I had never heard of this magazine: Christianity today.

    Using Wiki, it states that Billy Graham started this magazine in 1956 to “plant the evangelical flag taking a conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems.” Rather generic and could mean anything. Since your only “evidence” seems to be that you posted articles at this magazine, that really doesn’t prove that the publishers even agreed with you. It could simply mean that they were kind enough to print articles from people with all opinions as this blog does.

    Add to that, Graham started this magazine to be a counterpoint to mainstream Protestantism, and to bring evangelicals together, so his magazine was just one voice. I am sorry to keeping pointing this out, but this would be another example of your taking a few facts and trying to extrapolate them into a generic position on religion that fits all. Graham was a great man and superb evangelist for the faith, but he had certain beliefs that people could punch holes in. His “decision theology” would be the primary one that many of us would disagree with.

    Anyway, since many of us are of the same relative age as you, you will not be able to try to use the tactic that we don’t have your same life experiences. That somehow you have lived longer, read more books, and offered more opinions on religion, is a convincing debate tactic. It just means that you have done a lot of searching over the years for the meaning of life and, as of right now, have missed the point of it all.

    1. Mike 10:46 Rather generic and could mean anything.

      I agree with that. In the material I read there is, as I measure it, evidence the majority of Protestantism agreed abortion should be available. Catcher is no doubt correct is was not in denominational documents. Neither, I would guess is some statement that the Bible condemns abortion.

      I grew up in a rural evangelical church and I am certain every member, certainly my parents, believed there was nothing wrong with abortion. My wife grew up 200 miles away in a rural Methodist church, same thing. There is not polling data from this era. From my personal experience with it, however, it is bull $hit, a large insult, to say those who favored abortion availability did not believe in the Bible.

      1. mark anthony

        hi Jon, guess you didn’t like my comments re abortion and the eugenics movement of the early 1900s. Maybe it’s the proverbial matter of the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It is, I admit, a tad discomfiting to be reminded that eugenics, like abortion today, was often thought of as a “progressive” matter.

        1. mark 2:14 I have not allowed up several of your posts. Your inclination is cast one idea in one direction, cast another somewhere else, bring up some topic out of the blue but not explain why you brought it up.

          You are welcome to believe your posts and intellect is so powerful I’m afraid to post it. The reality of this kind of board is that debates have to be over quite easy to understand issues and each writer’s posts have to follow clearly from something earlier. If they are not from earlier the poster needs to explain how he went from the topic(s) at hand to what he wants to discuss.

          In addition, I most often, but not always, dump one-liners that come from a place only the writer knows.

      2. Catcher

        @ 12;36;Neither is some statement that condones abortion..
        Re the claim that Luther approval of abortion, (ELCA) He never repudiated his own teachings about the ensoulment of an unborn child, ie. Luther in later writings In fact, “Luther at the time of the reformation said;” “I adduced a rather crude analogy concerning the life of the fetus in the womb. For none of those who are alive today knows where he was during the first times when he lived either in the womb or when after being brought into the light of day, he sucked his mother’s milk. He knows nothing about the days, the nights, the times and the rulers, yet he lived at that time, and he was a body joined to a soul, a body adapted to all functions”. “Luther on abortion” Dr. Paul Kaldahl
        You won’t find that in Christianity Today.

  4. Jinx II

    So why are you christian shariah cult members trolling a blog written by an avowed athiest? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black according to your terms.

    Bet it makes you feel good to “tell off” the athiest, thus elevating yourself in your own eyes and you think the eyes of others.

    Check out the deadly sin of PRIDE and apply it to your posts on Jon’s blog, you could use a good dose of humility.

    PRIDE is an excessive view of one’s self without regard for others. The Bible says the following in Jeremiah 9:23-24, ā€œ…Let not the mighty man boast of his might…but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me…ā€

    Pride is also mentioned in the following verses: Proverbs 8:13, Proverbs 16:18, Romans 12:16, 1 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 6:3 and James 4:6-7.

    HUMILITY cures pride by removing one’s ego and boastfulness, therefore allowing the attitude of service.

    1. Catcher

      Jinx; Respectfully; I don’t see the topic of abortion as being atheist or Christian. There are those on both sides of the fence from both camps.
      Actually, I see abortion and other “hot buttons” as more of a distraction than substantive, and that’s why I seldom contribute, unless claims are made that can be shown to be in error.

      1. Jinx II

        Catcher, I know you are a stickler for truth/fact and I respect you for that even if I don’t always agree with you. I agree with your above statement and did not intend to lump you with the christian shariah cult members, my mistake and I apologize. I’ve been ok with you once I realized where you’re coming from and the thought and research you have done to base your opinions on.

Comments are closed.