feature
January 26th, 2009
“Yes We Did”? No–our work has just begun
The fourth installment of Marc Adams' inaugural vlog
In the fourth installment of his video blog from Washington D.C., contributing editor Marc Adams checks in a week after the inauguration, with an important reminder that the work is not over; it has just begun.
“we voted for “????? not me.
I would vote for Marc, but I did not vote for President Obama.
Look at Catholic social teaching and you will find that the last eight years of the Bush administration has been a travesty against true Christian compassion. Abortion is one issue that must be adressed–but it isn’t the only issue. The Democratic platform has more “pro-life” initistives than the Republican and certainly the neo-con agenda. Torture ? Lack of attention towards the elderly and children ? The war in Iraq–lies to the American people ? And with a “conservative” executive branch for eight years, a Republican legislative branch for six years and a judicial branch that since the 1980’s has been heavily conservative we still haven’t seen the end to Roe v. Wade…So, talk is cheap. In the meantime, the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, the economy tanks, legal immigrants’ children are cut out of health care, thousands of lives are lost in the Middle East, Osama Bin Laden still hasn’t been captured and Catholic commentary is still vilifying President Obama because his stand on abortion favors choice..
Let’s get real, people…Let’s work to change the conditions which might lead a person to choose abortion. Let’s make adotion easier. let’s make foster care a more viable option. Let’s support pregnant women who feel alone and desperate–And please let us all realize that the outlawing of abortion will not stop women from having abortions, it will just make them obtain them from clinics outside the US–( at least for the rich).
Better to get at the root cause than to fight a losing battle.
why has no one brought up “Theology of the Body” to work on changing the attitude toward sex ? Its the approach to the beginning of life and the acts meaning and ramifications. Its not just doing it or getting it on and figure out what to do next. Judy — just continue to take note on the culture of death iin this country — no main stream media really covered the March for Life and NBC refused to air the commercial that CatholicVote.com wanted to air. Respect for life from conception to natural death is the issue from which all else comes.
–and– let me not forget — the day after the March for Life, Mr. O , by executive order, reinstated that our tax dollars are being used to subsidize abortions in Mexico. Did you know that on the White house web page it is stated that he is working to eliminate descrimination of contraception.( what does that mean ? I have to accept contraception as a way of life ?) Watch out for not being able to work according to your conscience if you are a healthcare progessional. He is dangerous.
Joe..is anyone forcing you to use contraception ? This wonderful country of ours is not the United States of Catholicism. It is the United States of America which includes people of just about all faiths, moral understandings and practices. We have had 8 years of Evangelical Christianity at its worst–I am not an evangelical and yet that ideology permeated our federal legislation . No one forces a person to have an abortion; no one forces a person to uses artificial contraception–these are personal issues that are between a person, their doctor and their God, discerned through conscience.
President Obama, in revoking the “gag” order in developing nations regarding women’s health clinics that provide abortions, did not increase the number of abortions ( women who want them will have abortions –regardless of whether they’re legal or not)–but in reality he helped provide the means for women to plan families, prevent conception, diagnose and treat STDs as well as breast cancer, and other gynecological health issues–life is messy, life is complicated, and the answers are not as easy as many so-called conservatives paint them to be.
Life issues DO include everything from conception to natural death–and we must remember that in reality we have not had a true “pro-life” president ever–George Bush was probably one of the worst in that area. Are the dead Iraqi babies any less precious in God’s sight than any other. George Bush is hardly the saint traditional Catholics want him to be.
Look not only at words but how actions affect actual abortions. I did vote for Obama. Already as Marc said he has done things I disagree with. But I agree more than disagree. If Obama is true to his commitment. He is more in keeping with Catholic Social teaching than Bush or even Clinton.
On the abortion issue, I agree he is wrong. Yet don’t go by words about being for or against abortion alone. How do the other policies affect people’s decisions to have or not to have abortions. Under Reagan, strongly committed to pro-life in words, but never fought for it, his policies which did not support programs to help a woman to keep her child – caused the abortion rates to soar. Under Clinton, a pro-choice president, because of the programs to help those who chose to have a child there was a major reduction in actual abortions. So don’t get hung up in the words, but in the actions and the effects of those actions on how many fetuses (not to mention babies eating lead, teenagers being shot, ill people not getting healthcare, inmates on death row, soldiers) are killed. Being truly pro-life is a ’seamless garment” and requires learning about the complexity and all the issues surrounding it.
Amen, Donna ! You are absolutely right ! What is the goal ? Decreasing abortions. How do we do that ? Certainly not by making it illegal again. Women will always find a way to end a pregnancy–even if they have to do it themselves and risk their lives…No, we decrease abortions through : education, support, and an attitude that says women are not the enemy. Donna’s right. Abortions actually went down during the last Democratic administration. Reagan, Bush, and Bush were all talk, and nothing more. But they managed to fool the so-called “cultural conservatives”. Let’s all work together for the common good and see what happens.
You can tell allot about a society by the way it treats it’s unborn and elderly. If a person does not respect life from conception to natural death what do they respect ? You may want to start reading some works of faith that are of some substance — like the church fathers ( and even a contemporary — Chaput). If you dont live your faith, you are a banging drum or a clashing symbol — that is just making noise. From what I read here, I dont see the courage to live ones faith as that faith says to.
ladies, I dont agree with you, nor do I understand your cowardice in truly living your faith.
last comment — you do realize that if Mr. O’s mom had his attitude toward the unborn, he wouldn’t be here. — http://www.catholicvote.org.
Joe, Just look at how the Bush administration treated the elderly..as well as the unborn..and yet, people such as yourselves make them out to be poster children for life.
Whatever your animus against President Obama may be, our real goal is decreasing the number of abortions. Reagan, Bush, and Bush could not do it. Maybe you need to take your “courage” and lobby your lawmakers for programs that support the mother and child, make adoption easier, provide viable day care on college campuses, make daycare more affordable…The Europeans have had the right idea for years–”family values ” is not just a nice sounding slogan–they have provided families with the full support they need. True courage comes down to being willing to face a situation, and truly give of oneself. Have you offered to take responsibility for a baby whose parents cannot take care of ? Have you offered to take an unwed teenager in your home and provide all that is necessary for her and her baby ? Catholic Social teaching ( which dates to Rerum Novarum) commands us as Catholics to care not just for the unborn but for ALL LIFE–including the life of the mother. You mention the Church Fathers ( whom I have read extensively) and Archbishop Chaput–What about the Church’s teaching on Consistent Life Ethic ? Don’t throw the word “courage” around unless you are prepared to do more than quote the Church Fathers ( who often disagreed with each other)…Joe, President Obama does not support abortion. He supports a n America which allows for diversity–not all religions believe that human life begins at conception.
“President Obama does not support abortion. ” – are you new to this world ? Check his voting record and stop drinking the kool-aid.
“not all religions believe that human life begins at conception.”
Science proves that life begins at conception.
President Obama supports choice. In fact, he has proposed a NUMBER of initiatives which are aimed at decreasing abortion.
And yes, many religions do NOT hold that life conclusively begins at conception. Some hold that human life does not begin until the fertilized egg and sperm implant in the uterus. Scientific evidence does not even concur.
AND, there are many who believe that if it is a case of the mother’s life or the unborn baby’s, that the mother and her family should have the right to choose…NO ONE is forcing a person to have an abortion in our society..
and just to set the record straight, I am against abortion, I believe it is wrong, as I do all murder–including the death penalty, but I have rarely heard any cleric rail against the death penalty with the same fervor that they rail against abortion–which is a much more complex issue : rape ? incest ? the mother’s life in danger ? Many would argue that in those cases it is an action of self-defense–depending on the circumstances. There are 13 yr old children impregnated by relatives, step-fathers, etc…Yes, the unborn child did not ask to be conceived, but the life of the OTHER child must be taken into consideration. With no choice, it forces some chilling situations.
well — choice — the decision to murder innocent life. Where does your adoption argument fit in if you are allowing murdering innocent life ? it appears you dont understand that one can have a moral society without religion. Respect for life is the core – no excuses. its all or nothing. You dont ant a child brought into this world – DONT HAVE SEX.– whether a cleric preaches on it or no. At the end its between you and God – no one else– you are answering to your Creator about your actions not what someone else said. Its about You and God.
Making abortion illegal will not end abortion. And as far as having sex is concerned, many, many married women choose to end pregnancies. Do I think this is right ? no. Do I think making abortion illegal is the answer ? no. The rich will always find a way ( like they always have) and the poor will be butchered ( like they always were). I simply propose a more positive approach to decreasing ( or hopefully) ending abortion.
Don’t have sex ? No one ? married men and women ? Now who’s drinking the Kool-Aid ?
I don’t think President Obama is suggesting that we are “done” by any stretch of the imagination. Did you listen to his speech? “Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.”
And where do you all get the idea that we’re funding abortions in Mexico? “The Mexico City Policy” was just the fancy name for the Gag rule started by another old white man (Reagan). If you are anti-choice, that is, well…your choice (aren’t you glad you have one?) But the gag rule not only affected a woman’s access to a safe and legal abortion, it also limited the resources of clinics overseas that provided immunizations for children, malaria treatment, obstetric health care, and HIV/AIDS treatment. Why? Because those clinics also offered abortions. So my friends, in your quest to rid the world of abortions, you also managed to make it even more difficult for children and expectant mothers in developing countries to receive the health care that they needed.
The Church’s teaching on abortion begins this way in the Catechism:
2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
Sara – so according to what you say, US is only allowing heathcare overseas if abortion is a part of the package ?
AREADER-No, they are limiting health care funding IF abortion is part of their service. So, a clinic could offer a myriad of other vital health care services, but if abortions are provided, they are stripped of their funding. Obviously, if you are anti-choice this is fine, force them to get rid of abortions. However, if you take away abortion services many third world countries would experience an influx of unwanted births adding more demand for already dwindling resources like food, water and health care. Listen, I’ve never met anyone that was pro-abortion. No one wants abortions, but I think it’s time to be realistic. Unwanted pregnancies will happen and they hurt everyone. If you really want to prevent them, teach safe sex. You’ll also be preventing HIV/AIDS in the process…bonus. But I would argue that to take funding away from health care clinics that save lives and also provide contraceptive to prevent abortions in the first place isn’t a very pro-life agenda.
Clarification – Limiting funds for clinics that provided abortions was part of the Gag rule. Now that it is overturned, funds can flow freely to clinics regardless of their abortion services. No clinic would be denied funding because they did not offer abortions.
“The recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that only 35 percent of those surveyed approve of the President’s controversial move ‘allowing funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortions.’ Fifty-eight percent disapproved of this executive order.”
Just something else to add to the mix — read “Mexico City is Just the beginning” on http://www.catholicthing.com/.
lets add this to the mix –found this on foxnews:
Groups Declare Obama’s Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer
A provision in the House-passed stimulus bill — banning money to be used to renovate schools from being spent on facilities that allow “religious worship” — has ignited fury among those who claim it discriminates on the basis of faith and violates the right to free speech.
Fox News ??? They have dedicated themselves to pushing the neo-con agenda for years. Just look at Hannity…O’Reilly…Fair and Balanced they hardly are.
Judy:
It’s been some time since you last posted so I don’t know if you’ll ever read this. It’s distressing to me to see that you and some others have justified your vote for Obama, in your minds, based on the anti-war pro peace argument. As if the tragic deaths of so many in a costly and perhaps even unjust war could somehow outweigh the over 50 million souls lost to abortion. The argument that a vote for Obama is a vote to somehow decrease abortions overall, attempting to aid the less fortunate and thereby reduce the reasons why individuals seek abortion in the first place is flawed at best. Now I hope you don’t take offense to this, and i hope you approach it with an open mind. I have done the same for the arguments that you have made, and I find them all lacking. I hope you have also taken the time to reflect on the document promulgated by the USCCB, Faithful Citizenship. http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/ This is not an issue of individual conscience or private interpretation, and this is certainly not an issue of weighing the lesser of two evils, I’m afraid. The Pope as well as the Bishops have made it clear time and again that the issue of abortion is such that it takes precedence over all others, it deals with the most fundamental right to life after all. The Republican party may have failed in other respects, but it is incumbent upon everyone to work with such a party to right the wrongs of the so called “Neo-cons.” The Democratic party, on the other hand, has aligned itself entirely with the pro-abortion movement, and for that reason it cannot be supported.
My fear is that you may have a flawed and malformed conscience. In that case I doubt recourse to the authority of the Magisterium, the Pope, or the Bishops will be of much use. It’s sad to see so many nominal Catholics touting their faith, while not actually being a real member of the Body of Christ, can apparently go on indefinitely without self-examination. If one is going to simply deny the most central tenets of the Roman Catholic faith why be Catholic at all? I’ll offer up a prayer for you that you might discern this matter more clearly, and that any that stumble across this post that are in the same boat as you might do the same.
I hope you’ll read Faithful Citizenship, as well as the numerous other documents that have made this point clear.
Just to add, these articles make the argument that I unfortunately don’t have the time (or likely space) to flesh out in the comment boards. Please take a look at them, they make some key points that I’ll include with the links:
“Both John McCain and Barack Obama support the culture of death. John McCain supported the Iraq invasion and continues to support further military intervention in the middle east. John McCain also supports the death penalty. But on a much larger issue, far more serious than the above two, John McCain also supports fetal stem-cell research, which the Church considers tantamount to abortion and the U.S. Bishops have just voted to universally condemn in this year’s bishops conference. In addition to that, John McCain’s supposed “opposition” to regular abortion is weak and dispassionate at best. In short, John McCain is a very weak candidate on the issue of life. He likes to call himself “pro-life” but he has not earned that designation by any stretch of the imagination. As weak as McCain is on the issue of life, Barack Hussein Obama is far worse.”
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/06/can-catholic-vote-for-obama.html
——————————-
“The Cardinal added: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
The key is that in order to vote for a pro-abortion politician and remain in good enough standing with Our Lord to be worthy to receive Him in Holy Communion, one must have “proportionate reasons”. But what can be considered proportionate?
Could it be, as is often said, that because one candidate supports abortion and another, while being against abortion, supports a war effort or the death penalty, that that would be a “proportionate reason” to vote for the pro-abortion candidate over the anti-abortion one? Cardinal Ratzinger answers the question in his document.
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia,” explained the document. “For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061208.html
————————————-
and
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=265
Hope that helps. I won’t be responding further.
God Bless
CJ,
Your comments are well thought-out. But I will say it again. Outlawing abortions will not end the act of abortion. Offering support–both monetarily and spiritually will do much to cut down on abortions. When abortion was illegal in all 50 states, the rich took their daughters overseas and the poor found other methods ( my grandmother in the late 1920’s was offered an abortion by a midwife–it was my grandmother’s 8th child and she was 40 years old. My grandmother roundly refused–but it was available none the less. ) What Catholics everywhere must work for is to create a climate in which abortion will be unnecessary–proper sex education , for one; making it easier to adopt children, for another.
A twelve year old who is raped by a relative ( or stranger) and finds herself pregnant and has an abortion ( because a child having a child is extremely unhealthy) is not evil. The abortion is, but the act is not–follow ??The CIA agent who waterboards a suspected terrorist is much more culpable of the evil enacted than the 12 year old.
Making abortion illegal is a matter for the courts, not a presidential administration. The Supreme Court ( which clearly leans conservative) and the past three Republican presidents have done NOTHING to overturn Roe v. Wade–so no party is really the Party of Life. the Republicans just talk big.
Pres. Obama’s policies still embody more of the Catholic teachings than did Bush’s.
Oh and by the way, CJ…My conscience has served me very well for 50 some odd years. Take care of your own. I am at peace with a God who loves me and you.
One more thing to all the Pharisees out there : Receiving Jesus in Holy Communion is not a reward for a job well done–it is food for the journey. Remember the very flawed disciples at the Last Supper ? Jesus didn’t give them a litmus test–and neither should we.
“Outlawing abortions will not end the act of abortion.”
Certainly, you’re right it won’t. But does that have any affect on the need for law? We outlaw murder, robbery, rape, drugs, yet still these things are prevalent. By your logic we should then legalize all these things. Our laws stand because they are wrong, because they need to be stopped and should be, if we legalized any of these things then we are making a moral statement, that such things are permissible. The same goes with abortion, your point isn’t really a valid one. Secondly, abortion is NEVER necessary, though you are right we should work to limit it by aiding those that feel tempted to look to it for relief.
“A twelve year old who is raped by a relative ( or stranger) and finds herself pregnant and has an abortion ( because a child having a child is extremely unhealthy) is not evil. The abortion is, but the act is not–follow ??The CIA agent who waterboards a suspected terrorist is much more culpable of the evil enacted than the 12 year old.”
Actually this is wrong, you don’t understand the difference between an evil and an intrinsic evil. Torture is always wrong, but whether or not inflicting pain to elicit information from a terrorist under certain limited circumstances (in the case of a ticking time bomb scenerio wherein the information can be used to stop a bomb from going off an killing the innocent) may not even constitute torture. Much like “stealing” from a grocery store to feed one’s starving family is not stealing in the eyes of the Church, in its technical usage, torture may or may not be torture, depending on the circumstances. Abortion, on the other hand, is always OBJECTIVELY and INSTRINSICALLY evil, in that it always results in the murder of an unborn child. It can never be justified. In your example, the poor victim ought to give the child up for adoption, if the burden would be too great on the family, they don’t suddenly have the right to right an evil with an even greater evil (murder). One’s health, in this case mental I assume, is not a reason at all to justify murder, as I said, this is intrinsically evil. I’d really suggest you take a look at what the Church teaches on these issues, and examples, that you are using, from actual Church authorities, not lay opinion pieces.
It’s intersting that the left throws out labels like pharisee, rigid I assume you mean, when the left is so rigid in its own unorthodoxy. It’s that intolerance of tolerance, as it were.
I wouldn’t be so quick to assert that Obama’s policies, economic, social, etc. are reflective of Catholic social teaching. There is a diversity of opinion on this, and it could be well argued that his ideas actually lead to a slavery to the State. I’d recommend reading some of the writings of GK Chesterton or Hillare Belloc on Distributism, an alternative to both Socialism and Capitalism.
You should seriously spend time diving into what the Church actually teaches, the Catechism, the Fathers, the Popes and the encyclicals, and then after that consider whether one’s own beliefs match these. Then, after that, one should be willing to humble oneself before the Church and accept her teachings, while changing your own. This is what every Catholic does, what I do myself, we must submit to Christ and his body the Church. It’s called conversion.
In every moral argument there has to be a pastoral application. And yes, Pharisee, the “label” stands..and you should wear it proudly. The Pharisees were upright, honorable, honest men ( by and large) and they believed that the law was God..That by following the law one was assured of God’s approval. That all who deviated from the law were sinners. The Pharisees continued to parse the law just to make sure that God wasn’t being offended. Many you speak of intrinsic evil, evil, etc. are basically parsing the law. the bottom line is : What does Jesus require of all of us ?
As for the abortion question. This may surprise you…I am absolutely against abortion. I would do ( and have done) anything in my power to stop a person from making that choice. But the major difference between the legality of choosing rape, murder, etc ( you mentioned) is that society at large is threatened.
Oh, CJ, By the way. I have a doctorate in Theology–so I have spent a number of years studying catechism, popes, encyclicals, etc. The conversion you speak of is one of blind acceptance to Law. The conversion I speak of is one of the heart. God has the last word. Not you. Not me. Not Pope Benedict XVI.
If you think that making a distinction between intrinsic evil and evil is merely parsing the law, and judging by your tone something to be avoided, then I suppose you disagree with both the Catechism and Aquinas, who deal at length with both evil and intrinsic evil. Both types of evil are critical to a sound understanding of morality. The problem with your form of Catholicism, the relativistic variety, is that you make yourself the sole judge of what is right and wrong. No it doesn’t surprise me that you’re opposed to abortion, I don’t jump to conclusions as quickly as you apparently do, given that you think it would surprise me. To make the argument that society isn’t threatened by abortion, and therefore abortion is not of the same league as those other crimes, is terribly absurd, what is society but a community of individuals, when one is lost to abortion the world is changed irreversibly. One person makes an infinite amount of difference in the word, it’s mind boggling to consider.
Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.” John 14:15-17
That law is what Christ asks us to follow, those are his commandments, and we know this because we have a Tradition, which “transmits” the Truth to us. We can’t claim to have any objective truth without recourse to a body that transmits absolute Truth, a instrument of God’s revelation as it were, that is the Magisterium. Otherwise what is left are people trying in vain to make sense of a world without any logical and coherent epistemology, a relative reality, hence the sad breakdowns and tragic sense of life that so many of the secular world’s most esteemed philosophers suffered from. They asked the existential questions but had no True answers. But I’m off on a tangent now.
The fact that you need to keep commenting to me over the course of an hour tells me a lot too, so I’ll ignore the fact that you felt the need to brandish your degrees. Throwing out highly rhetorical statements like “blind acceptance to law” also speaks volumes. Remember that the root of all sin is pride. I’ve chosen to submit before Christ’s body, the Church, you’ve decided to make yourself the arbiter of Truth. We’ll see how that works out in the end.
And by the way, I’ve only got 2 decades under my belt and haven’t completed my bachelors degree. Oh well.
Judy, CJ, interesting debate going on, but I will have to side with CJ on the argument. The Church and the Magisterium are the Truth, as Jesus Christ has instituted. Any deviation from the most basic of tenets will result is apostasy, kind of like how the Council of Trent said about Protestants who do not believe confession of sins to a priest ordained by the Church is valid.
You could have 5000 years of experience, or be a new convert, and your moral foundation can still be rotten with pride either way. Submission to Christ and His Church is needed, no subjectivity or “conscience” about it. Its okay to not believe in the Lourdes apparitions, that won’t make you lose salvation. But believing that abortion in any form (other than an ectopic pregnancy) is ok and should be legal, is blasphemous.
Okay, well to the point of why I was posting here in the first place, I read your post where you said Jesus didn’t “litmus test” those at the Last Supper with his body and blood speech…. well newsflash Judester, HE DID! Lets go straight to the source, the historical records in John 6, starting at, oh lets say VERSE 60… and here we go!
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
See? He knew that he’d lose some of his followers by that saying. It was REVOLUTIONARY and INSANE what he said, to the apostles there (lower case a, note). Then Jesus goes on saying…
67″You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
The 12 Apostles stick it out with Him, believing that the body and blood REALLY ARE HIM, not symbolically, but literally (minus scumbag Judas ;) )
Sorry if I come off condescending, thats something I’m working on but Truth is the Truth is the Truth, and must be defended properly.
In all things God has the last word. Do you really believe that protestants are not welcome in eternal life ? Jews ? Muslims ? Is the TRUTH only captured in the teachings of Church councils ( many of which were politically motivated) or in the words of popes ? ( Remember GAlileo??). God cannot be pinned down or confined in one dogmatic tradition. God is greater than us all and always manages to get the last laugh. Despite the rantings of celeibate old men in Rome, we will see married and women priests yet…either that or forego the Eucharist.
Hey, Bravo16 :
Judester ? Are you for real ??
Poor Pff,
Judging by what you’re saying, it appears you have nothing more than an elementary understanding of the Galileo affair. It had little to do with Church Doctrine and a whole lot to do with a conflict with the Aristotelian geocentric idea held by the scientific community of the time. The debate was between scientists, the Church stepped in when Galileo overstepped his bounds after he tried his hand at Biblical exegesis. Get the facts straight before you start with the rhetoric. You could crack open a legitimate history book and educate yourself on this.
Your hatred for the clergy is really un-Christian, assuming you are Christian. If you have any faith in the Eucharist I’d imagine you’d have a whole lot more respect for priests. If you call yourself Catholic, with that sort of attitude, I’m afraid to say from appearances you aren’t, and you are really just one of the apostates that Bravo16 is talking about, doing yourself a disservice by living in abject hypocrisy. Take a look in the mirror and quit calling yourself Catholic if you do, because you aren’t. Like Pontius Pilate you ask, what is Truth? You don’t believe in God’s Revelation? You think that the Truth can be found in other Creeds? There may be reflections of the Truth, but the Truth of Revelation is only found in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
God Bless and hopefully you’ll seek and find Christ one day and enter into communion with His Body the Church.
And to Judy:
Judestar was pretty funny… LOL! =)
pff,
For the record, no Catholics do not believe we are the only who can enter eternal life. Of course we believe our way is right, with the Church as our vehicle, if you will. Our faith and God’s grace lived out in the life of the Church is the “ordinary” way to eternal life, but we also believe that through God’s infinite mercy it is possible for other Christians and those of other religions to enter the kingdom of Heaven. God bless.
I can bet that when I meet Our Lord face to face He won’t ask me anything about the Aristotelian geocentric idea. He will ask me if I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the tjirsty, visted the prisoner and the sick, welcomed the stranger. How do I know that ? He told us all in Matthew 25.
CJ, I’m sure your way to God is consistent with the way God fashioned you, but if you really look at the gospel message of Jesus you will see that our obligations to Him are pretty simple: Love God with everything in us and love our neighbor as ourselves.
CJ,
your idea of “funny” is a bit bizarre. At any rate, it appears that you are one “wordy” individual and that’s fine–but being a disciple of Christ requires a heart that loves not words that divide. Catholicism is one path to God..our brothers and sisters of other faiths have found their path.
Bizzare? We’ll that’s just a subjective opinion, and undoubtedly you have no issue with subjectivism.
As for love, love is not license. It does not mean we permit someone to wallow in error, out of some foolish conception of love or charity. Love sometimes means a swift kick in the pants.
You can try to use vain sentimentality to your advantage, but that’s simply a misrepresentation of Christ’s message:
Luke 12:49-53 “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished. Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. (So I suppose I am in good company with Jesus then hmm?)
From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
Luke 14:26 “If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10:34-38 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.”
Not to mention Jesus actions in the Temple with the money changers, a whip of cords is a bit harsher than my words, is it not?
Evangelization sometimes means making people uncomfortable; admonishing the sinner is the first of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
Funny. It seems odd that you and pff both seem to have the same browsing habits on busted halo, you both seem to be online around the same time!
Anyway, I yield to you the last word, I’ve made my point. Relativism and pluralism are both apostasies, Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life. Those of other faiths may find salvation thru His mercy, but that does not mean we fail to evangelize them, nor does it mean we allow others to live in sin or error due to some flawed impression of what Love really is or requires of us.
As Chesterton once said: “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
And also:
“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
Words to ponder…
Goodbye!
abortion is wrong. end of discussion.
torture is wrong. end of discussion.
death penalty is wrong. end of discussion.
euthanasia is wrong. end of discussion.
any dimunation of human life is wrong.
what more should Catholics say ?
God Bless You All.
You’ve changed my mind, CJ and I thank you. It really got me to thinking. Sometimes we get carried away by the easy answers.
Bless you
Hey artie,
Thanks for your input. I wish it were that simple, but regarding capital punishment, while it is unfavorable, and ought to be avoided, the Church does not define it as an intrinsic evil like abortion or euthanasia.
Pope Benedict, when he was still a cardinal, said this: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia….
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
Now I agree with you that torture is always wrong, but like stealing, certain circumstances can diminish or even remove that definition, ie. stealing food from a bakery to save a starving child is not actually stealing. The Church recognizes these things, the subjective and objective aspects or any moral action. What you’re saying is, while partly accurate, too simplistic.
And pff, if anything I said did hit home, then chalk it up to the Holy Spirit and not me, I can be pretty rough around the edges, if anything spoke to you then it was definitely Christ working thru a frail human vessel. =) God Bless, Christ be with you!
I agree, CJ, but I think Catholics should never stop preaching the truth. Everywhere…no exceptions. We have been too silent too long. The Pope is the ultimate authority and more Catholics should realize that.
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.