PDA

View Full Version : Texas Bishops Face Protests from 24 Pro-Abortion Catholics .



megimoo
10-16-2008, 06:36 PM
"It Looks Like The Faithful Catholics Need To Support Their Bishops !"

"Some two-dozen parishioners walked out and went to the local media to lodge their complaints about "political endorsements."

When is the last time a bishop's statement on abortion resulted in several days of protest from pro-abortion Catholics? The joint statement issued last Friday by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth and Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has done just that. No doubt the forceful clarity of the bishops' message elicited the outcry.

The protests began on Sunday when the statement was read from the pulpit by Rev. Tony Ruiz, pastor of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in downtown Dallas. Some two-dozen parishioners walked out and went to the local media to lodge their complaints about "political endorsements."

The next day, the Dallas Morning News carried the story on the front page of its Metro section. "The silver lining was that the article contained a link to the bishops' statement," said Karen Garnett, executive director of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee, Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Dallas.

Garnett told me that the subsequent protest on Wednesday afternoon in front of the diocesan chancery attracted the same number of people who had walked out of the Mass at Holy Trinity. Bishop Farrell, who was out of town on Wednesday, has offered to meet with the protesters.

"Too many parishes do seminars on 'Faithful Citizenship' that don't put the life issues first. We've been dealing with that problem for 35 years," added Garnett.

Olivia Franklin, a member of Holy Trinity for 15 years, heard Father Ruiz read the statement. "I'm thrilled that he read it, and I hurried out the door to tell him thank you. This is the truth, and we need to hear the truth."

Franklin had recently attended four seminars at Holy Trinity on "Faithful Citizenship." At these sessions she was told "one could in fact vote for a pro-abortion candidate if one was not voting for them for that reason." She raised objections to what was being taught, only to be told it was just her opinion.

There have been over 40 statements to date issued by bishops this election season. Some responded to comments made by Sen. Barack Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, about the beginning of human life. Others responded to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's appearance on Meet the Press when she, too, misrepresented the Church's teaching on abortion.


But the biggest problem of this election for Catholics has been the bishops' own document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." In an otherwise admirable document, there is one section (Sec. 34-37) that has provided an open door for pro-abortion Catholics to drive through and proclaim their support for Obama, a proponent of abortion-on-demand. (I have already written about the effort to use "Faithful Citizenship" to help Obama.)

One of the problematic passages in "Faithful Citizenship" presently being spun by Obama's Catholic supporters is the following:

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptableposition may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.

Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamentalmoral evil.

Bishops Vann and Farrell demolish the arguments of leading Obama Catholic surrogate Doug Kmiec and others, that "Faithful Citizenship" can be interpreted to support Obama in the present election.

Bishops Vann and Farrell explain that voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil like abortion is possible only if 1) "both candidates running for office support abortion or 'abortion rights,'" or if 2) "another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion."

Obama's Catholic apologists argue such a situation exists with Sen. John McCain, citing his support for the Iraq War. Bishops Vann and Farrell reject this line of reasoning in advance, saying "there are no 'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year."

Olivia Franklin believes God is using the bishops' statement and the controversy at Holy Trinity. "For too long authentic Catholic social teaching has been co-opted by the 'social justice' crowd, who rail about the death penalty while conveniently ignoring the real death penalty presently being carried out -- the 4,000 babies executed daily by abortionists."
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4713&Itemid=48

wilbur
10-16-2008, 07:51 PM
Good for them... Not for supporting Obama, but for breaking away from the Church on this issue

FlaGator
10-16-2008, 11:23 PM
Standing up for the murder of children is always a good thing I guess.

Gingersnap
10-17-2008, 10:09 AM
Now if they will just follow through and leave their church completely. There are innumerable secular organizations willing to take their money and their time. Saints and sinners belong together but sheep and wolves don't - at least not yet.

megimoo
10-17-2008, 11:09 AM
Now if they will just follow through and leave their church completely. There are innumerable secular organizations willing to take their money and their time. Saints and sinners belong together but sheep and wolves don't - at least not yet.
They can make much more noise by running to the MSM on every issue and remaining so called Catholics.

If they are against the teachings of the church why do they remain Catholics .They should know that eventually a bishop with some courage will stand up and declare the the Church's true position .The Catholic Church has too long 'pussy footed 'around this issue because of political sensitivity's and now is the time to speak out and condemn it !

Why are they surprised and why do they protest, haven't they known all along that the church is opposed to the pro-death position of these baby killers .

Do they really expect the church to change it's position to accommodate their wishes because of their numbers ,all twenty four of them, ?

I suspect the rest of the congregation, of at least several thousands, is in full agreement with the bishop or they would have joined this bunch.

If this continues and escalates into a confrontation with the Bishop on the churches teachings and they defy him I wonder will he have the courage to pronounce them separated from the Catholic Church and finally,if they fail to recant,excommunicate the whole bunch !The daemon is hard at work in America these days !

wilbur
10-17-2008, 11:57 AM
[SIZE="3"]They can make much more noise by running to the MSM on every issue and remaining so called Catholics.

If they are against the teachings of the church why do they remain Catholics .They should know that eventually a bishop with some courage will stand up and declare the the Church's true position .The Catholic Church has too long 'pussy footed 'around this issue because of political sensitivity's and now is the time to speak out and condemn it !


In no universe that exists has the Catholic church ever pussyfooted around the abortion issue. :confused:



Why are they surprised and why do they protest, haven't they known all along that the church is opposed to the pro-death position of these baby killers .


I agree, they should know, but if I were going to church for 'spiritual refreshment', I would get a little annoyed at sermons about politics. One should and could come to the conclusion that there are issues upon which the POTUS or other elected officials will have a more immediate and severe impact, even though one may consider abortion deplorable... and that one can and in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate. If the church wants to fight abortion.. fine... they shouldnt be telling people the major deciding factor between candidates in every election has to be abortion, or its a sin. You can do the former without doing the latter.

This article states that these people are actually pro-choice, so I don't know how they reconcile that... sounds like they should leave the church.

Baby killer rhetoric is a little tiring... One simply cannot make that strong of a case for the idea that a early term fetus is anything deserving of human rights, or that destroying one is 'murder'... except to arbitrarily proclaim that it is murder. You have to at least recognize the fact that there are stronger (or as strong) arguments for the reverse.. that being the case... begrudging compromise is all that will ever be achieved.... unless one half of the country has a simultaneous epiphany.

megimoo
10-17-2008, 12:41 PM
In no universe that exists has the Catholic church ever pussyfooted around the abortion issue. :confused:



I agree, they should know, but if I were going to church for 'spiritual refreshment', I would get a little annoyed at sermons about politics. One should and could come to the conclusion that there are issues upon which the POTUS or other elected officials will have a more immediate and severe impact, even though one may consider abortion deplorable... and that one can and in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate. If the church wants to fight abortion.. fine... they shouldnt be telling people the major deciding factor between candidates in every election has to be abortion, or its a sin. You can do the former without doing the latter.

This article states that these people are actually pro-choice, so I don't know how they reconcile that... sounds like they should leave the church.

Baby killer rhetoric is a little tiring... One simply cannot make that strong of a case for the idea that a early term fetus is anything deserving of human rights, or that destroying one is 'murder'... except to arbitrarily proclaim that it is murder. You have to at least recognize the fact that there are stronger (or as strong) arguments for the reverse.. that being the case... begrudging compromise is all that will ever be achieved.... unless one half of the country has a simultaneous epiphany.
"Baby killer rhetoric is a little tiring" learn to adjust to the expression for that is exactly what it is Willie.:rolleyes:

The expression pussy footing is appropiate to those political critters pandering to the Catholic vote and advocating baby killing .The Bishops have been loth to point them out and have pussyfooted around by not calling them Heretics .Don't be confused Willie they are full blown hypocrits and deserved to be called to task from the rooftops, if need be, by each and every Catholic Bishop in America .:D

Definition :Heretics claim to still be following a religion (or to be the "true followers"), whereas apostates reject it entirely.

GrumpyOldLady
10-17-2008, 12:49 PM
Good for them... Not for supporting Obama, but for breaking away from the Church on this issue

If you break from the church on Abortion, then you have excommunicated yourself.
They are now no longer 'catholics in good standing'.
I'm sure that'll make some anti-catholic bigots very happy.

But the fact is that these whackadoos are protesting in favor of MURDERING CHILDREN.
Their souls are in danger. It's nothing to celebrate.

wilbur
10-17-2008, 12:55 PM
If you break from the church on Abortion, then you have excommunicated yourself.
They are now no longer 'catholics in good standing'.
I'm sure that'll make some anti-catholic bigots very happy.

But the fact is that these whackadoos are protesting in favor of MURDERING CHILDREN.


Prove it. Prove that a freshly conceived egg deserves human rights.

noonwitch
10-17-2008, 01:04 PM
If the bishops didn't want to part with donations from pro-choice, wealthy catholics (like Kerry and Kennedy), they probably would excommunicate them. If they want the moral authority to teach the average catholic that voting for pro choice candidates is against the church's teachings, they have to be consistent with the wealthy catholics.

As a liberal, I never understand why liberal catholics stay members of the church. My BIL was raised catholic, his parents are very devout, and he can't agree with the church on issues of abortion and birth control, so he no longer participates in the eucharist when he attends mass for a family function. The episcopalian church is ready and waiting for them, especially if they don't have issues about gay clergy.

wilbur
10-17-2008, 01:12 PM
[SIZE="3"]"Baby killer rhetoric is a little tiring" learn to adjust to the expression for that is exactly what it is Willie.:rolleyes:

The expression pussy footing is appropiate to those political critters pandering to the Catholic vote and advocating baby killing .The Bishops have been loth to point them out and have pussyfooted around by not calling them Heretics

Wrong. The church's own opinion regarding the act and consequences of abortion should be a different matter entirely and be removed from questions about actual abortion legislation and questions about the governments role of enforcing it. They dishonestly conflate the all those different portions of the abortion issue.

A little reductio ad absurdem....
Having sex before marriage is a mortal sin.... it can land you in hell all on its own. Souls are at stake as we have a country and culture that is going straight to hell, if that is believed. Where are the Bishops calling for laws against premarital sex? Hell, with abortion, the aborted babies get to go straight to heaven.. so really, premarital sex is a greater danger to our standing with God than abortion is, if you honestly follow the premises the church lays out for us. And there are a lot more people having premarital sex (and gasp, using birth control!) than there are having abortions. Using the pill is equivalent to abortion in the church's eyes. Why are they not telling us that any candidate who is pro-pill should be voted against?

The church has gone beyond its role of providing spiritual guidance and has stepped full force into the political arena by telling voters who and what to vote for and by dictating to its members exactly what type of government philosophy they should hold.



.Don't be confused Willie they are full blown hypocrits and deserved to be called to task from the rooftops, if need be, by each and every Catholic Bishop in America .:D


Being pro-choice doesnt mean one condones abortion... it may just mean that they don't feel the government should ban it. Do you condone premarital sex, or birth control, because you don't (hopefully, you don't) support laws against it? When it comes to abortion, the church and its members have truely and unabashedly thrown reason to the wolves... such is the danger of religiously motivated morality.

Divorce can also get you thrown from the church... they just don't do it because they wouldn't have any members left these days. The same thing could happen with abortion... eventually.

Gingersnap
10-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Prove it. Prove that a freshly conceived egg deserves human rights.

Prove it doesn't. The point here isn't what you believe (you are an atheist, right?) or what I believe (I'm a Continuing Anglican) but what the RCC believes about its own doctrines and magisterium. The bishops had every right to point out the RCC's understanding of this matter. Bishops are supposed to instruct the faithful on matters of doctrine and they are supposed to exercise that authority in church during the normal services.

The 24 dissenters from Catholic teachings are free to join a more congenial church or to abandon their faith at any time. That's fair. As far as ex communication goes, these people have put themselves in latae sententiae excommunication.

FlaGator
10-17-2008, 08:05 PM
Wrong. The church's own opinion regarding the act and consequences of abortion should be a different matter entirely and be removed from questions about actual abortion legislation and questions about the governments role of enforcing it. They dishonestly conflate the all those different portions of the abortion issue.

A little reductio ad absurdem....
Having sex before marriage is a mortal sin.... it can land you in hell all on its own. Souls are at stake as we have a country and culture that is going straight to hell, if that is believed. Where are the Bishops calling for laws against premarital sex? Hell, with abortion, the aborted babies get to go straight to heaven.. so really, premarital sex is a greater danger to our standing with God than abortion is, if you honestly follow the premises the church lays out for us. And there are a lot more people having premarital sex (and gasp, using birth control!) than there are having abortions. Using the pill is equivalent to abortion in the church's eyes. Why are they not telling us that any candidate who is pro-pill should be voted against?

The church has gone beyond its role of providing spiritual guidance and has stepped full force into the political arena by telling voters who and what to vote for and by dictating to its members exactly what type of government philosophy they should hold.



Being pro-choice doesnt mean one condones abortion... it may just mean that they don't feel the government should ban it. Do you condone premarital sex, or birth control, because you don't (hopefully, you don't) support laws against it? When it comes to abortion, the church and its members have truely and unabashedly thrown reason to the wolves... such is the danger of religiously motivated morality.

Divorce can also get you thrown from the church... they just don't do it because they wouldn't have any members left these days. The same thing could happen with abortion... eventually.


Not being a Catholic I'm not certain of all of their tenets but I believe that all sins are mortal sins that any sin causes one to fall short of the glory of God. Fortunately all sins can be forgiven except one. Any ways, abortion was a moral issue long before it became a political issue so the Church is doing nothing wrong but addressing a moral issue and telling its congregants how it feels about abortion and what the Church expects of them. As for "being pro-choice doesn’t mean one condones abortion" violates all the rules of logic. It is a position that contradicts itself. It says I'm against murder, but if people want to murder then that is their right. See how silly that sounds. You are either for or against something. Anything else is an attempt straddling the fence and have it both ways.

Another point premarital sex and birth control don't violate the "You shall not murder" commandment. Birth control is considered a sin because of what some denominations believe to be a misinterpretation of a verse from Genesis. Pre-marital sex is ban because it cheapens a blessing that God gave man and it violates a bond that God intended to be life long bond between man and woman.

Finally, who said that the Churches role is limited to spiritual guidance? Can you back that up with factual proof that this was the only niche that God intended for the Church? It seems that this is the role you find comfortable for the church to fill and anything else make you uneasy because if the Church was to gain more political power you feel you might lose your ability to do the things you like but know the Church is against.

Gingersnap
10-17-2008, 09:07 PM
Having sex before marriage is a mortal sin.... it can land you in hell all on its own. Souls are at stake as we have a country and culture that is going straight to hell, if that is believed. Where are the Bishops calling for laws against premarital sex? .

I think you are confusing the nature of sin here with the moral obligation to "do right" in an individual's own life and circumstances.

There are a number of things that would be classified as a grave sin among Catholics but most of them are not things subject to human legislation. Premarital sex can be reconciled both with the RCC, the partner, and the wider believing community through sincere repentance and a change in behavior. Elective abortion absent the need to save the mother is different. Catholic teaching sees this as the death of an innocent. Some Catholics generalize this out to a prohibition against war and execution but this isn't supported by the foundational bulls. Their position isn't "wrong" for individuals, it just doesn't apply to all Catholics.

Really what all this comes down to is whether anybody can apply any non-legislative, non-judicial or non-political reasoning to any voting decision. If you believe they can't, you have totalitarianism. If you believe they can, you have the messy but more libertarian process we have now.

wilbur
10-18-2008, 10:46 AM
Not being a Catholic I'm not certain of all of their tenets but I believe that all sins are mortal sins that any sin causes one to fall short of the glory of God. Fortunately all sins can be forgiven except one. Any ways, abortion was a moral issue long before it became a political issue so the Church is doing nothing wrong but addressing a moral issue and telling its congregants how it feels about abortion and what the Church expects of them.


That's fine... telling them how to vote at spiritual gun point is not... that kind of coercion is immoral.



As for "being pro-choice doesn’t mean one condones abortion" violates all the rules of logic. It is a position that contradicts itself. It says I'm against murder, but if people want to murder then that is their right. See how silly that sounds. You are either for or against something. Anything else is an attempt straddling the fence and have it both ways.

Another point premarital sex and birth control don't violate the "You shall not murder" commandment. Birth control is considered a sin because of what some denominations believe to be a misinterpretation of a verse from Genesis. Pre-marital sex is ban because it cheapens a blessing that God gave man and it violates a bond that God intended to be life long bond between man and woman.


By some estimates, the pill and some other forms of legal birth control cause more conceived eggs to be aborted than actual medical abortion procedures each year. This is my point... if you believe the pill should be legal, then there is no logical way you can be consistent and believe early term abortions should be illegal, or vice versa.

If you can claim it is OK for a Catholic to believe that the government shouldn't outlaw the pill and other forms of BC, then you can't claim that it should be impossible for them to be pro-choice. Pro-choice isnt necessarily a judgment on the morality of the procedure, but a judgment on the government's role in a philosophically treacherous issue.



Finally, who said that the Churches role is limited to spiritual guidance? Can you back that up with factual proof that this was the only niche that God intended for the Church? It seems that this is the role you find comfortable for the church to fill and anything else make you uneasy because if the Church was to gain more political power you feel you might lose your ability to do the things you like but know the Church is against.

After a couple thousand years of hard learned lessons, we have thankfully mostly removed its authority in the political system. However, it's trying to usurp the power back by telling its members to vote their way... or else. They've simply stepped outside the bounds of their expertise, yet pretended they are just as authoritative.... as if they are the final say of God's will in political and governmental matters, and not just theological ones.

FlaGator
10-18-2008, 12:17 PM
That's fine... telling them how to vote at spiritual gun point is not... that kind of coercion is immoral.
How is sharing the churches beliefs and values telling them how to vote "at spiritual gun point?" Unions do this, they give out lists of the politicians and causes they expect the rank and file to endorse. And just like the unions the congregants are able to vote their conscience regardless as to what they hear from the pulpit. If this is immoral then you are say that every organization and group that provides guidance to their members is doing something immoral by coercing their members to vote a certain way. For the record, my church doesn't tell me who it endorses. It does provide me a list of all the candidates and lists what they do and don't support. I am free to make the determination on who I vote for based on that criteria or any other that I choose to use.



By some estimates, the pill and some other forms of legal birth control cause more conceived eggs to be aborted than actual medical abortion procedures each year. This is my point... if you believe the pill should be legal, then there is no logical way you can be consistent and believe early term abortions should be illegal, or vice versa.

I never stated whether the pill should be illegal or not. I will state that taking the pill with the intention to not fertilize eggs is a whole lot different than that actively seeking the murder of the unborn. Are the two morally equivalent? I am not sure. Are the intentions behind both acts different? Yes they are. I am against the use of the morning after pill because of the intent behind its use and by that same token I am ambivalent to the use of the pill to prevent pregnancies based on the intent. Scripture (like modern law) maintains a different moral view on the accidental killing (manslaughter) and the intentional killing (murder) of an individual. I believe the same logic can be applied here without inconsistencies in morality.



If you can claim it is OK for a Catholic to believe that the government shouldn't outlaw the pill and other forms of BC, then you can't claim that it should be impossible for them to be pro-choice. Pro-choice isnt necessarily a judgment on the morality of the procedure, but a judgment on the government's role in a philosophically treacherous issue.


It seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the view of pro-choice that you are implying is that I can believe that something is morally wrong for me but might be morally acceptable to another so I should abdicate my moral responsibilities to my brother and sister and let the Government keep the option open for them to commit an act that I find morally wrong. That reeks of me acquiescing to moral relativity and as you know I believe in a common set of morals for all people. Murder is murder and can't be prettied up with a title like pro-choice. How can a individual who sees abortion as murder accept the belief that someone else can murder and it not be wrong for them. "Am I my brother's keeper?" When I am trying to stop my sister from murdering one of my other brothers or sisters, I just might be. Because the law says that they have this right, my only recourse is to pray for them and if asked, to give them my opinion. Nothing, however, stops me for supporting political candidates who hold the same views and morals that I do.



After a couple thousand years of hard learned lessons, we have thankfully mostly removed its authority in the political system. However, it's trying to usurp the power back by telling its members to vote their way... or else. They've simply stepped outside the bounds of their expertise, yet pretended they are just as authoritative.... as if they are the final say of God's will in political and governmental matters, and not just theological ones.

The Church never should have had the total societal power that it did in the dark and middle ages. But I will argue that any group religious or otherwise would have fallen victim to the same behavior so don't lay that behavior at the feet of religion. Lay it justly where it belongs at the feet of man's sinful nature. With that said, why should the Church be treated differently than any other organization in the country? If the church has no right to endorse candidates and policy based on its world view then no organization has this right. When you silence the church, you must also silence the unions, social organizations, ecological groups, anti-war groups, anarchists, economic organizations and anyone else who has a view on how government should be ran and what laws should be enacted.

You have a particular distrust of the church that causes you to single it out and hold it to a different level of accountability than other groups. Your language and logical arguments highlight this. Sit back and look at your view of the church and compare it to your view of other organizations that have an interest in the direction that America moves and tell me if you feel that you are treating all equally.

wilbur
10-18-2008, 05:36 PM
How is sharing the churches beliefs and values telling them how to vote "at spiritual gun point?" Unions do this, they give out lists of the politicians and causes they expect the rank and file to endorse. And just like the unions the congregants are able to vote their conscience regardless as to what they hear from the pulpit. If this is immoral then you are say that every organization and group that provides guidance to their members is doing something immoral by coercing their members to vote a certain way. For the record, my church doesn't tell me who it endorses. It does provide me a list of all the candidates and lists what they do and don't support. I am free to make the determination on who I vote for based on that criteria or any other that I choose to use.


Union's don't hold their souls for ransom. What we are talking about is a far cry from a union pressuring someone or recommending votes. Consequences that any other organization can bring to bear upon someone are all of a material nature, and temporary. The church, (and churches) have a much more sinister and severe carrot to dangle... the salvation or damnation of your eternal soul.

They immorally exercise this control so that we have millions of Catholics basically submitting proxy votes for the Vatican.



I never stated whether the pill should be illegal or not. I will state that taking the pill with the intention to not fertilize eggs is a whole lot different than that actively seeking the murder of the unborn. Are the two morally equivalent? I am not sure. Are the intentions behind both acts different? Yes they are. I am against the use of the morning after pill because of the intent behind its use and by that same token I am ambivalent to the use of the pill to prevent pregnancies based on the intent. Scripture (like modern law) maintains a different moral view on the accidental killing (manslaughter) and the intentional killing (murder) of an individual. I believe the same logic can be applied here without inconsistencies in morality.


Do you think the government should outlaw the pill? I'm willing to bet most Catholics' and most pro-lifer's wouldn't be comfortable with that idea. How can you say that anything short of prohibition for the pill is acceptable in any way (same to all the Catholics out there), unless it is needed in the most grave of circumstances? Maybe you can forgive some peoples culpability, if they are operating from a position of ignorance on the possible ways the pill works, but you cannot sit there and say that it is OK for the pill to be legal and also remain consistent with an abortion prohibitionist position.

And if you can at least understand why a Catholic might say that the government shouldnt be outlawing the pill, you can understand how a Catholic might also say the government shouldn't outlaw abortion... and consequently why its wrong for Catholic church officials to be threatening people with excommunication and things of that nature for voting for pro-choice candidates.



It seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the view of pro-choice that you are implying is that I can believe that something is morally wrong for me but might be morally acceptable to another so I should abdicate my moral responsibilities to my brother and sister and let the Government keep the option open for them to commit an act that I find morally wrong. That reeks of me acquiescing to moral relativity and as you know I believe in a common set of morals for all people.



It's not moral relativity... it's asking you acknowledge that your moral position is not infallible. Yes, you should let the government keep the option open. This in no way hinders any other efforts to help convince society that your moral position on abortion is the right one.

Using the government to force the rest of the country to adhere to your moral standard is... immoral.



Murder is murder and can't be prettied up with a title like pro-choice. How can a individual who sees abortion as murder accept the belief that someone else can murder and it not be wrong for them. "Am I my brother's keeper?" When I am trying to stop my sister from murdering one of my other brothers or sisters, I just might be. Because the law says that they have this right, my only recourse is to pray for them and if asked, to give them my opinion. Nothing, however, stops me for supporting political candidates who hold the same views and morals that I do.

The Church never should have had the total societal power that it did in the dark and middle ages. But I will argue that any group religious or otherwise would have fallen victim to the same behavior so don't lay that behavior at the feet of religion. Lay it justly where it belongs at the feet of man's sinful nature. With that said, why should the Church be treated differently than any other organization in the country? If the church has no right to endorse candidates and policy based on its world view then no organization has this right. When you silence the church, you must also silence the unions, social organizations, ecological groups, anti-war groups, anarchists, economic organizations and anyone else who has a view on how government should be ran and what laws should be enacted.

You have a particular distrust of the church that causes you to single it out and hold it to a different level of accountability than other groups. Your language and logical arguments highlight this. Sit back and look at your view of the church and compare it to your view of other organizations that have an interest in the direction that America moves and tell me if you feel that you are treating all equally.

Church's should be held to a different standard... as I said before, we are talking about supposedly eternal consequences, something far greater and more powerful than any material consequences that one could suffer.. Churches, in theory, have a much greater position of leverage with which to coerce their members into action. Anyone should distrust any and all organizations with that type of authority and power.

FlaGator
10-18-2008, 09:19 PM
Union's don't hold their souls for ransom. What we are talking about is a far cry from a union pressuring someone or recommending votes. Consequences that any other organization can bring to bear upon someone are all of a material nature, and temporary. The church, (and churches) have a much more sinister and severe carrot to dangle... the salvation or damnation of your eternal soul.

They immorally exercise this control so that we have millions of Catholics basically submitting proxy votes for the Vatican.

Because you are not a believer you have erroneous concepts of how believers view God and the Church. This is understandable. The church doesn't hold one's soul for ransom either. The church and I see eye to eye on most issues but on some we part ways. My soul is not in jeopardy because I see things differently that the Church. Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope but Protestants recognize that the Church errs just like humans do. Only God and his manifestations are beyond error so just because a Church tells a believer something doesn't make it so. We must validate what we are taught with what is in scripture. The lack of verification is why people like Fred Phelps and David Koresh manage to find followers. The man purpose of a Church is for broader understanding of God's word, worship of the Lord and fellowship with other Christians.



Do you think the government should outlaw the pill? I'm willing to bet most Catholics' and most pro-lifers wouldn't be comfortable with that idea. How can you say that anything short of prohibition for the pill is acceptable in any way (same to all the Catholics out there), unless it is needed in the most grave of circumstances? Maybe you can forgive some peoples culpability, if they are operating from a position of ignorance on the possible ways the pill works, but you cannot sit there and say that it is OK for the pill to be legal and also remain consistent with an abortion prohibitionist position.

Personally I don't care one way or the other what the government does or does not do concerning the pill because that is a secular matter and between man and man's government. If I was asked to vote on a law that would outlaw the pill I might vote yes or I might vote no. I am not sure. I would have to know the details before I could make a intellectual decision on that. I can say that from my moral high horse that using the pill for abortion purposes is wrong. But I am not willing to through the baby out with the bath water. I know of no Scripture that says that birth control is wrong. Until such a time as someone can show me in Scripture where prevention is immoral I will support it. As Luther said "I cannot do otherwise".

If someone decides to use the pill for abortion purposes then that is between them and God. Since the pill is legal they have that ability. The pill has dual uses, one I consider amoral and the other I see as immoral but I'm not the one who is going to have to speak with God about that decision to abort. I have enough issues in my life to answer to God for without adding someone else’s.



And if you can at least understand why a Catholic might say that the government shouldnt be outlawing the pill, you can understand how a Catholic might also say the government shouldn't outlaw abortion... and consequently why it’s wrong for Catholic church officials to be threatening people with excommunication and things of that nature for voting for pro-choice candidates.

Abortion has but one purpose. Would I vote to outlaw abortion? In a infants heartbeat I would. The pill on the other hand inhabits what can best be described as a morally gray area. I am not a Catholic but if a Catholic worshipper feels strongly enough that abortion and contraception is correct then they should be willing to accept excommunication. If they feel strongly enough that these things are not morally wrong then they have nothing to fear from God .However, I suspect that the outcry is more along the lines of desiring to have their view point upheld by the Catholic Church and therefore having someone to blame if they meet the Lord and find out they are wrong.





It's not moral relativity... it's asking you acknowledge that your moral position is not infallible. Yes, you should let the government keep the option open. This in no way hinders any other efforts to help convince society that your moral position on abortion is the right one.

Using the government to force the rest of the country to adhere to your moral standard is... immoral.

If I didn't believe that my moral point of view right then it wouldn't be a moral point of view would it? It would be a opinion. Opinions are not morals. As I said above the government can do what it will do and if it wants to keep abortion legal then that is ok. However, if given the choice to vote on it I'm going to vote with my morals.

The bolded portion is a completely hypocritical position my atheist friend. You seem to be saying that I can't use government to reflect my morals but you may use the government to force your morals on the unborn. My morality doesn't forbid me from using my morals for social decisions and apparently yours does. But you are now asking me to accept your morals and let abortion remain unfettered and my morals must remain silent. If abortion didn't involve the murder of the unborn I wouldn't have a problem with this and I would say fine let people make a morally poor decision if they want. Unfortunately a defenseless third party is involved so the situation is more complex. My morals tell me to defend those who can't defend themselves.




Church's should be held to a different standard... as I said before, we are talking about supposedly eternal consequences, something far greater and more powerful than any material consequences that one could suffer.. Churches, in theory, have a much greater position of leverage with which to coerce their members into action. Anyone should distrust any and all organizations with that type of authority and power.

A person is made righteous by his relationship with God and not by his relationship to the Visible Church. A person does not answer to the Church for his sins but to God and Christ bleed to death to play for the sins of believers, not the Church. The only leverage a Church has over someone is the leverage that they give the Church. Many, and I mean many, people have left one Church to join another because they could not accept the teaching or moral views of the Church they previously attended. Lots of these people are Catholic. I am an Anglican and we have lots of people who were once Catholic. People are not as bound to their church as you seem to believe.

PoliCon
10-18-2008, 11:29 PM
If they are against the teachings of the church why do they remain Catholics .Good question. Why haven't they been excommunicated?

Constitutionally Speaking
10-19-2008, 04:09 AM
Prove it. Prove that a freshly conceived egg deserves human rights.


It IS alive and it IS human. The DNA proves it. Unless you want to contradict science, DNA determines species.

Cold Warrior
10-19-2008, 07:56 AM
Now if they will just follow through and leave their church completely. There are innumerable secular organizations willing to take their money and their time. Saints and sinners belong together but sheep and wolves don't - at least not yet.

Maybe, maybe not. :D


They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the Sinners are much more fun...

wilbur
10-19-2008, 06:32 PM
Because you are not a believer you have erroneous concepts of how believers view God and the Church. This is understandable. The church doesn't hold one's soul for ransom either.

Perhaps those outside the church are in the best position to evaluate it's character... I have been both inside and out of the Catholic church at least, and I would be hard pressed to describe what they do as anything but holding souls for ransom.... at least when they start taking hard stances on candidates and political issues.



Personally I don't care one way or the other what the government does or does not do concerning the pill because that is a secular matter and between man and man's government.


Bingo! Abortion is exactly the same. If I'm not mistaken, the church has a similar view in regards to the pill... which is why their stance on abortion's legal status is blatantly hypocritical.



If I was asked to vote on a law that would outlaw the pill I might vote yes or I might vote no. I am not sure. I would have to know the details before I could make a intellectual decision on that. I can say that from my moral high horse that using the pill for abortion purposes is wrong. But I am not willing to through the baby out with the bath water. I know of no Scripture that says that birth control is wrong. Until such a time as someone can show me in Scripture where prevention is immoral I will support it. As Luther said "I cannot do otherwise".

If someone decides to use the pill for abortion purposes then that is between them and God. Since the pill is legal they have that ability. The pill has dual uses, one I consider amoral and the other I see as immoral but I'm not the one who is going to have to speak with God about that decision to abort. I have enough issues in my life to answer to God for without adding someone else’s.


There is no scriptural support for the idea that a newly conceived egg is a human being either. Using the pill for birth control, in essence, is using it for 'abortion purposes', since one of the ways it sometimes prevents pregnancy is by chemically inducing abortion of a conceived egg. I don't know of any common medical reason an abortion prohibitionist could use too justify the legality of the pill, where the circumstances were so grave, that the death of an infant is an acceptable risk.

Intent only matters for the culpability of the person taking the pill. But in the end it results thousands/possibly millions of dead babies, according to the Catholic worldview... so one wonders how the church can remain so silent on the legality of the pill, regardless of intent of the people taking it (which in the vast majority of cases is simply to prevent pregnancy). Dead babies are still dead babies.

That leads one to also wonder, how they can be so vocal and cantankerous on their member's own personal beliefs on the matter of abortion... and why I stand by my claim that they (church officials) have simply gone off their rockers (more-so than usual;)). They aren't just preaching that abortion is wrong... they are telling people its a sin, worthy of the harshest punishment available (excommunication) to think that government isnt the solution to this 'problem'!!



If I didn't believe that my moral point of view right then it wouldn't be a moral point of view would it? It would be a opinion. Opinions are not morals. As I said above the government can do what it will do and if it wants to keep abortion legal then that is ok. However, if given the choice to vote on it I'm going to vote with my morals.

The bolded portion is a completely hypocritical position my atheist friend. You seem to be saying that I can't use government to reflect my morals but you may use the government to force your morals on the unborn. My morality doesn't forbid me from using my morals for social decisions and apparently yours does. But you are now asking me to accept your morals and let abortion remain unfettered and my morals must remain silent. If abortion didn't involve the murder of the unborn I wouldn't have a problem with this and I would say fine let people make a morally poor decision if they want. Unfortunately a defenseless third party is involved so the situation is more complex. My morals tell me to defend those who can't defend themselves.


Since when, in the conservative worldview, is the government the be-all and end-all solution for defending those you think need defending? You are perfectly free to defend them... just not with the threat of force.

Coercing an entire nation of people to conform to a philosophically shaky position that they don't agree with by threat of government force is immoral... and (I don't bring this canard out often, but it's true in this case) unamerican! Like it or not, a slim but significant majority of people in this country feel very strongly that the government shouldn't outlaw abortion. One cannot hide from that fact that there are persuasive, solid arguments that human rights do not begin at conception. This cannot be swept under the rug and ignored while repeating the meme's about murder and baby butchery.

We could stop all abortion tomorrow if we submitted to totalitarian style law enforcement on the issue. On the spot public executions for sympathizers etc etc.... but we know that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. With a population with such strong emotions on both sides, and as divided as it is, you cannot even begin to hope make a significant dent in the practice by overturning a simple law unless you resort to such measures. This is the trade off we live with, in a democratic republic. The people must be convinced, not the government.

Morals as enforced by the government must be secular morals, since they must rightly govern people of *all* religions as well as the non-religious.



A person is made righteous by his relationship with God and not by his relationship to the Visible Church. A person does not answer to the Church for his sins but to God and Christ bleed to death to play for the sins of believers, not the Church. The only leverage a Church has over someone is the leverage that they give the Church. Many, and I mean many, people have left one Church to join another because they could not accept the teaching or moral views of the Church they previously attended. Lots of these people are Catholic. I am an Anglican and we have lots of people who were once Catholic. People are not as bound to their church as you seem to believe.

I think you're minimizing just how powerful the churches influence over its members is. Threat of ex-communication... a punishment only served to the most grave offenders in the Catholic church.. the absolute most severe punishment the Church can give someone.

wilbur
10-19-2008, 06:36 PM
It IS alive and it IS human. The DNA proves it. Unless you want to contradict science, DNA determines species.

Depends on what definition of species you use... the concept of species is a lot fuzzier than we typically think.

Millions of cells that slough off of us on a daily basis have DNA... the live cells we may use for a DNA test have DNA. Interestingly enough, a down syndrome baby has extra DNA (a whole nother chromosome). A turners syndrome baby is missing a chromosome. So under your DNA criteria, is it OK to abort fetuses with these conditions?

FlaGator
10-19-2008, 08:32 PM
Perhaps those outside the church are in the best position to evaluate it's character... I have been both inside and out of the Catholic church at least, and I would be hard pressed to describe what they do as anything but holding souls for ransom.... at least when they start taking hard stances on candidates and political issues.
<snip>


I was going to give a point by point reply but I am unable to do that because of many misunderstandings you have concerning Scriptural doctrines. (For example you view a wrong and a sin as two different things as in:

They aren't just preaching that abortion is wrong... they are telling people its a sin

something morally wrong is a sin). Anyways I want to ask you this.

What is so wrong with expecting people to make the right choice at the right time? We could end all abortion that way as well. All the pro-life side is saying is make the right choice before a life has to be taken. Choose abstinence and if that isn't acceptable choose prevention. What is wrong with people making those choices? In our society we have become so use to not being responsible for our actions that we extend it to every facet of our lives. I see parallels with abortion and jumping off a building. If I leap off a 10 story building then I can't decide to reverse my fall if I'm less than a 1/3 of the way from the top. I have to see things through to the end. That was the decision I made when I jumped. Same with abortion. A couple of people made a choice that they knew could result in a pregnancy and now the want a do over because the unthinkable happened. As conservatives are we suppose to want people to accept responsibilities for their decisions both good and bad? Why should pregnancy be held to a different standard?

linda22003
10-20-2008, 08:25 AM
FG, I agree with almost everything you're saying here. People should definitely use precaution; sometimes precautions fail. Some people simply are careless, but some take care and still have a failure. Abortion is not meant to be birth control, but it can be a remedy for when it fails.

wilbur
10-20-2008, 01:24 PM
I was going to give a point by point reply but I am unable to do that because of many misunderstandings you have concerning Scriptural doctrines. (For example you view a wrong and a sin as two different things as in: something morally wrong is a sin). Anyways I want to ask you this.


The church makes it quite clear, it is a grave sin to vote against a pro-life candidate if the other candidate is more moderate, period. How am I confusing things here?



What is so wrong with expecting people to make the right choice at the right time? We could end all abortion that way as well. All the pro-life side is saying is make the right choice before a life has to be taken. Choose abstinence and if that isn't acceptable choose prevention. What is wrong with people making those choices?

There's not much to argue with here, nothing is wrong with those choices... but abortion prohibitionists want to take it a step further, and make the choices for them... that's not personal responsibility, that's big government nanny-statism.... Very philosophically close to liberalism.. people can't be counted on to be responsible enough to weigh the issue themselves because they won't always make the choice that abortion prohibitionists want them to make... so lets just force them!